Redstate

"What he is, at heart, is a manager...."

Managers are people that leaders hire - or something like that.

But the one thing that cannot be denied is that Romney inspires fierce loyalty in people. So much so that those people have a tendency to, ahem, go a little over the top with their admiration of him. That's an important quality for a Presidential candidate because when it comes to Presidential elections, voter turnout is a very key thing - more so than policy.

Look, I like Fred. Really, I do. But Romney is beating him right now for a reason.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

I discussed the whole leader/manager thing below. Suffice it to say here that Romney has hired more managers in his time than the rest of the candidates combined.

.

But I like Romney for the same reasons. He's a manager first, but he's not your average middle-manager. He's an executive-level manager with a fast mind and a powerful presence. And on a personal level I think he's been liberated by not having to be the Governor of Massachusetts any longer.

I'll go even further than you:

I think Mitt Romney has been working overtime to court Conservatives not because he's trying to fool them, but because he really is closer to them than most people have realized until this point.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I think that given the chance Mitt Romney might be the dark-horse Conservative that could transform a lot of people, even in the Northeast.

I also think that he wants to govern as a Conservative and will be a good partner in the White House in that regard. I don't think Jim Talent was lying to me in New Hampshire.

I'm also hopeful in that most of the Mormon businessmen I know range from Ron Paul/Alan Keyes types on the right to Bush/McCain types on the left. Makes me hopeful that Romney really is comfortable with conservatism.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

When someone runs for mayor of New York City or governor of Massachusetts, they probably don't have the option of being pro-life. I would think that running as a social conservative in either place would be a suicide mission, not a realistic run for office.

What I'm getting at is that while I might be willing to cut a Republican serving in left-wing territory a little slack for taking liberal positions, a Republican who represents a conservative constituency who takes liberal positions has some 'splaning to do. That doesn't mean that I think Giuliani's views are equivilent to those of Sam Brownback and the only difference is his zip code. No. I'm just saying that Giuliani and Romney had less to work with given the territory that they were covering.

Romney

I think it is interesting that Romney moved swiftly to the Right on social issues once he decided he was running for president and not running for reelection in the peoples Republic of Massachusetts. Does this mean that Romney was conservative all along and he simply "trimmed" on issues when running in Massachusetts in 1994 and 2002? Or does it mean that Romney is a wolf in sheep's clothing? Or maybe Romney is an opportunist on social issues with no strong feelings either way when it comes to abortion and marriage?

Giuliani

I look at it this way. Giuliani could have stated very clearly on the day he announced his candidacy for president that, though he is pro-choice, he thinks Roe versus Wade is bad law. Further, he could have said that compelling people to pay for a procedure that they think is murder is bad public policy. To my knowledge, he didn't do either.

Thompson

Thompson might be the most traditional Republican in a group of maverick and blue state Republicans. His dissents on issues from the party line have been on campaign finance and tort reform. These dissents don't make me happy. But given his overall record, they aren't deal brakers either.

McCain

Given that McCain represents Arizona, one can conclude that his dissents from the party's core beliefs have been reflective of deeply held beliefs. Why does a Republican from Arizona vote to the Left of people like Collins (Maine), Smith (Oregon) and Coleman (Minnesota) unless his views are to the Left of these people?

Huckabee

Giuliani is proof that there's nothing in the rule book that an economic - law and order conservative must be conservative on social issues. Maybe Mike Huckabee is proof that one can be against abortion and same-sex marriage while still believing that the Biblical command of "We are our brothers' keepers" requires higher taxes on "Wall Street" and more spending on people who need help. After all, if you listen to enough of George W Bush's speeches ("When people are hurting, government must move"), you realize that the split between economic conservatives and social conservatives could be larger than we had imagined.

Very fair, though I'm probably higher on McCain than you are. I think there's just something deep in his character which impels him to give folks the bird every now and again. When your Sen. from Ariz., you do that by voting on some lefty stuff. When your Pres., you can do that by vetoing entitlements.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

You have some good points Leon, and I certainly recognize the obstacles Romney had to overcome in MA.

The problem is this: What if Romney is faced with similar obstacles in the US Congress? It is not completely inconceivable that he will face a legislature made up of 60% Democrats. Will he cave in there too?

I guess the problem I have with Romney is the same problem I have with Rudy. I have to take a huge leap of faith to vote for the guy.

60% Democrats is not 80% Democrats. Bush I was able to get a lot of good things done with the threat of a veto, which he showed a real willingness to use. In that way he really put his imprint on a lot of policy that would otherwise have been awful. Romney vetoed the crap out of bills in Massachusetts but the legislature was more than veto-proof so he just got overridden on a lot of them.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

By which I mean that even if the Democrats got to 80% in Congress, it would still have a centre of gravity well to the right of the MA legislature. The Dems already have all the congressional representation from MA. If they make gains it won't, therefore, be in MA, but in more conservative areas, and the people they elected there would be more conservative than the ones they elect in MA.

Not that I am conceding they will get to 80%, 60% or even 50% next time.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I don't think the Democrats will have 60 percent of both houses of Congress as a result of a 2008 election in which a Republican wins.

Still, if you think that Romney might have a tough time moving the nation in a conservative direction with a Democrat Congress, how well would a Giuliani, a Thompson, a McCain, a Huckabee do with the same, hypothetical Congress?

Which of these guys is more likely to take the heat from the press, to take the criticism from the Left (and even moderate members of the Republican party) and still fight it out?

Which of these guys is more likely to "reach across the aisle" and make deals that are bad for the country but have the affect of temporarily taking the heat off of the Republican president?

We all criticize Bush for signing McCain-Feingold after repeatedly criticizing the legislation. He did it because he wanted to "move on" from that issue and thought he might be able to purchase a little bit more cooperation from McCain if he signed McCain's pet legislation.

Prescription Drug Coverage.

Bush proposed a small, less costly plan and some reforms for Medicare. The Republican Congress said, "No, thank you. We want to look like Santa Claus. We don't want to do the political heavy lifting of reforming Medicare." Bush responded, "All right then. Let's negotiate over how large the new entitlement program will be and how many free market concepts will be folded into it."

A bad deal. But that was with Hastert and Frist in charge of Congress. (No applause, please.) What will it be like with one of these 5 in the White House negotiating with Pelosi and Reid?

If the Dems get 60%, you don't want a guy who surrenders but you don't want a guy who declares war either. What you want is a poker player, master negotiator type, who cajoles, threatens, bullies, and sweettalks Congress into giving him his way while thinking that he's giving them theirs. Giuliani and Romney strike me as the most likely to be able to accomplish this, though I wouldnt' be surprised if Fred were actually a pretty vicious poker player.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

You know, I acknowledge your concerns with Romney, but what put me over the top was this: imagine all the men you just described actually being President. Sitting there in the Oval Office. Making policy decisions. Now imagine which one would be most likely to actually govern as a conservative in that position. To me, I have no problem imagining Romney do it, because I really do think he made a good-faith effort at it in Massachusetts, and I think he'll do much better without a legislature that is 80% donk.

Leon, that's the best argument that I've seen for Romney from anyone in any quarter. It even works if you think that Romney wasn't and isn't behaving in good faith: Romney has repeatedly shown that he is willing to moderate his views to reflect his consistuency. In this case, "moderating" his views meant moving right -- and, true to principle, he did it. There's no reason to think that he's suddenly going to swing back given that the US is a lot more conservative that MA.

I don't disparage Romney's moderation, by the bye. A lot of politicians would do a lot better if they spent more time trying to reflect the desires of their constituency.

Yet, I don't get excited by Romney -- in part because of this fact. The best Presidents, in my view, have a stone in their gut. It's not stubbornness exactly; nor does it ignore reality or refuse compromise. But it's a certitude that knows when to compromise and when not to: differentiates between a show of strength and the real thing. Reagan had it. Eisenhower had it. FDR had it. JFK may have had it. Romney doesn't.

The only candidate that I see it in today is McCain. (Huckabee may have it too, but I can't get on with Huckabee for any number of policy reasons; it's almost eerie how he zigs where I zag and zags where I zig.) I like many of McCain's policies (the war, torture, immigration). I dislike a few too (McCain-Feingold). I also have my standard differences that will apply to every Republican candidate (I'm classic liberal, not conservative). But what most attracts me to McCain is the sense that he knows who he is and he'll tell you where he stands.

You can be a good president without this X-factor. Nixon, until his amorality tripped him up, was.* But we've had at least sixteen years of presidents without it -- presidents who either blew with the winds or calcified like Lot's wife in their certainty.** I think that we'd be better served at this moment in time with a president who not only knows where he stands, but isn't afraid to say why he stands there -- at the risk of losing the debate, but also with the possibility of persuading others.

That really is important in a war leader. I see it only in McCain.

von

*I know referencing Nixon sounds like damning with faint praise, but his foreign policy chops were first rate.

**Yes, yes, calcified isn't exactly right -- but it's close and it fit.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Fred's weakness isn't in his people or the ones that want to support him. HE is the one that needs to show people that HE will win the nomination. The last thing anyone wants is a nominee that either doesn't want to be there or thinks it should be bestowed on him.

The last thing anyone wants is a nominee that either doesn't want to be there or thinks it should be bestowed on him.

==== 13 ====

I understand where you are coming from, but what is he supposed to do? Beg like the rest of them are? He has plans, most on both sides of the fence don't. That it pretty ambitious to me....more ambitious than the rest i'd say.
Just because he isn't running around like Curly, going "woop woop woop woop" that makes him lazy?
More people need to stand behind him on principal, if we believe in him, he can win. Strength in numbers.HWSNBN makes the news with his handfull of supporters. Maybe those who like Fred for his beliefs should put their support behind him instead of jumping ship for Guiliani or Romney etc.
If you like him, support him....simple.

This baby is a monster

I also wanted to use myself as a launching point for people to talk up their respective picks. I am hopeful that this will not degrade into a mud slinging thread. (While it can be argued that stuff has its place, we've had more than enough lately.)

I believe Fred may not be as able to win the primary as Rudy or Romney, and mostly I think that is because of a media meme. I think both of them may have a hard time with elements of the base in the general, and you need the base+ to win.

If more people who liked him but were worried about his "electability" would just vote for him anyway, he'd probably win in a landslide?

"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh

I am not so concerned about his electability. Based on what I know now, I WILL vote for him as long as he is still in the race when it comes my turn. I am always open to new information and arguments though, because I have been disabused of the notion of my own infallibility.

I knew you didn't need convinced. You already were.

But for a secondary in case the worst does happen and he drops out...

Well, mine is Giuliani because the WAR is #1 on my list. McCain fails it in a big way because of immigration and torture.

And Giuliani wins my backup vote because of his history of not kowtowing to terrorists. His reaction to 9/11 and how he led his city through the aftermath of that disaster was icing on the cake for his resume there. Remember him refusing to allow Arafat into his city?

And the others, well...

"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh

I agree, the decision seems to have been made:)
I personally won't vote for Rudy or Mitt.
Rudy has all his issues, but I like the guy at least. Like someone else said, Mitt has that used car salesman feeling. Maybe it's the George Hamilton like Man-Tan. I have other reasons for not liking him though.
No disrespect to anyone who supports them, I just won't waste my vote anymore.

This baby is a monster

You decided to lead off with this gem:

First, I truly believe that the Republican Party better shed the image of "I am an elitist Kool-Aid" drinker.

What's that supposed to mean? It sounds like you don't have much affinity for the Republican party to begin with. If that's the case, one might be tempted to dismiss your views on the candidates from the get go.

"I am an elitist Kool-Aid" drinker.

That Republicans are viewed by many as "elitist Kool-Aid drinkers" then you are really out of touch with reality. That or it could be that you're from a strong Red State where everyone is an elite - and therefore don't appear to be "elite"

Party Elites have worked at running our party into the ground, most recently evident by Karl Rove's manipulation of the various wings of the party to deliver short term victories while sacrificing our principled victories (elections and domestic conservative policy victories) for the long-term.

Party Elites have worked at running our party into the ground, most recently evident by Karl Rove's manipulation of the various wings of the party to deliver short term victories while sacrificing our principled victories (elections and domestic conservative policy victories) for the long-term.

Prescription Drug coverage for Medicare? Anything else?

No Child Left Behind
Steel Tariffs
Inadequate Border Enforcement
Mexican Truck Drivers
Budget Deficits
Spending Increases
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
McCain-Feingold
Mediocre Planning for the Occupation of Iraq
Waterboarding

Well, the last two weren't done for political gain.

Many of these decisions (Sarbanes-Oxley), (McCain-Feingold) were pushed hard by members of Congress. Karl Rove wasn't much of a player in those two.

Mexican Truck Drivers. That's just a policy disagreement between those who want more competition in the trucking industry and more trade with Mexico against those who don't.

Budget Deficits. Well. Bush did inherit a recession from Clinton and he also inherited the Dot Com bubble. And he did want the tax cuts to stimulate the economy. And he did want defense spending increases, especially after the September 11th attacks. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do have the impact of increasing spending.

Waterboarding? There is just a disagreement between the McCain-Lindsay Graham wing of the party with the Bush-Cheney wing. Former CIA director George Tenet has said that we gain valuable intelligence from waterboarding. We even use waterboarding on our own military recruits.

Steel Tariffs? Those were reversed within 2 years of their enactment.

I guess the whole "manipulation" charge seems like hyperbole. It's not like Karl Rove has a vote in Congress. And Congress did a lot on their own to increase spending and resist entitlement reform.

What do you think would happen in a Huck/Chuck Norris VS. Fred Thompson match?
I put a Fiver on Freddie

This baby is a monster

However, Hitler also displayed "leadership" and "effectiveness"

I'm NOT saying Rudy is a Hitler, but WHERE and WHY someone will lead us is even more important that the fact that they can.

This is one of Rudy's big problems IMO . . . even with his multiple assurances on justices/abortion and other social issues I just can't be confident that he won't revert back to his "riding roughshod" leadership style.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

The discussion here so far is solid and 99.9% negative free, lets be careful where we take this. You are for Romney, tell me about Romney's leadership and effectiveness qualities.

Also, I agree with the gist of what you are saying, that "leadership" and "effectiveness" alone does not pass the test of sufficiency.

Tell you about Romney's leadership and effectiveness qualities?

I LOVE softball questions!

Seriously, this is why most people I know are for Romney. I've read his book "Turnaround" and was amazed at the resounding success he accomplished (from an economic and PR standpoint) there.

His leadership at Bain Capital is stuff that MBA students discuss in their "case studies" cirriculum all over the nation.

When the parent Bain & Co.--the consulting firm he started with--was floundering (while he was with Bain Capital) he came back in and made if a market-dominating force again with economic solvency.

As Gov. of Mass he had a strong record of leadership and accomplishment. He couldn't accomplish everything he desired in that liberal Democratic environment, but he did balance a $3 Billion budget deficit without raising taxes, sheparded through about the most conservative/market-based healthcare reform that Mass would ever accept, used the bully pulpit and courts to assure that only gay couples that were MA residents could have marriages there . . . and fought tooth and nail to get a statewide constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage on the ballot. Etc . . .

(I even know people who were congregation memebers in Boston when Romney held ecclesiastical positions there . . . they say he was an inspiring and effective leader within the church too)

Romney is both a leader and an effective manager.

Leadership and effectiveness are the of his candidacy . . . and I, and most conservatives, do/should like where he's said he'll lead us.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

Last sentence there should have read:

Leadership and effectiveness are the sine qua non of his candidacy . . . and I, and most conservatives, do/should like where he's said he'll lead us.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

The same reasons you state above for not liking Rudy. I share them. I also have the same feeling about Mitt. I would rather listen to a Doctor I trust than one with all the experience and "papers" in the world. Trust is paramount. I don't trust him. JMO

This baby is a monster

crippling the Mafia and cleaning up and completely turning around New York City. That is a red herring. He has not merely displayed leadership and effectiveness however it is also undeniable that he has displayed them for good.

Romney's transformation on all social issues is suspect at best. To say that we should be worried about Rudy on social issues when you support Romney is pot meet kettle.

Again, there is no doubt that Rudy has the most leadership and effectiveness qualities and that those qualities have lead to the most good in his past. Those things are really not up for debate. You can debate his stance on the issues, but to me, leadership and effectiveness are so much more important than where he stands on abortion. Trying to muddle things by claiming that being effective and a great leader as some sort of comparison to Hitler is with all due respect asinine. He has a history of doing amazingly good things and that is not in dispute.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

Maybe you didn't read my post, but I stated expressly that I was NOT comparing Rudy to Hitler (for which presumed comparison you called me "asinine"). It's a simple (albeit shocking) illustration of why "leadership" and "effectiveness" can be vices as easily as virtues.

Rudy did a lot of good in NYC and you and he make a compelling argument. But you seem to claim like him that he's the most effective leader ever.

You state:"Rudy has the most leadership and effectiveness qualities and that those qualities have lead to the most good in his past. Those things are really not up for debate."

Wow! Glad that debate's over and done with. Mitt's leadership experience is much more broad than Rudy's. He's been the "head cheese" for far more years than Rudy has. He's had resounding success in all areas of his leadership.

Rudy's leadership had some more "drama" to it, but, the fact that you are willing to "close the debate" on the issue sounds a lot like Rudy's "bull you over" leadership style in NYC. Sounds like you found the right candidate for yourself to support.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

It was said of George W. Bush -- and to greater extents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan -- that he could make a crowd of 1,000 feel like they were in a personal conversation with him; and of Al Gore and John Kerry, that they could make the participants in a one-on-one conversation feel like they were in a crowd of 1,000.

Both of those men came within whiskers of the Presidency, despite having no real appeal on a camera, and light appeal on the stump. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are -- Clinton hype notwithstanding -- phenomenal near-proximity speakers and horrible TV speakers, except at rare moments when they excel.

Both barely eked out the Presidency, even with the wind at their backs.

The complaint to which you refer with respect to Romney is a common one. I make no weight on its merits because I'm kinda used to most politicians seeming plasticky, so it doesn't ping me if he is or isn't -- I honestly can't tell. However, the question:

Given that a lot of people will never see the man in person, and instead on TV, and that the people who feel this way about him feel this way after seeing him on TV, and given, I think, that there's at best no wind at any GOP candidate's back, isn't this a real problem?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

It could be a real problem if it is really true. However, I think that this reputation is more of a media and political opponent creation than a real "gut reaction" that the average voter has to Romney.

My evidence?

1) Ask Frank Luntz who has the most positive real-time reaction during his focus groups over all the debates. It's Romney (and Huckabee rivals him). These are folks watching and reacting to the different candidates as they speak.

2) Romney's TV ads have been hugely successful at garnering positive exposure that have been part of the factor leading to hishigher poll numbers in early states (McCain's been on the air in NH for weeks with no net gain in polling . . . similar trend for Fred so far--though they may just need some more time--I'll take a wait and see on that)

3) Romney is excellent in a TV interview setting IMO.

4) He's a gifted debator. He hasn't won every debate, but his average performance over all the debates is tops by most assesments.

So no, I really don't see Romney being at a disadvantage in a TV dominated political climate. The MSM will savage any GOP nominee sure, but Romney's skill set may be just what the doctor ordered to combat such.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

I don't get to watch TV -- I mean, seriously, I think I get to see 3.5 hours' worth of adult, by which I mean grown-up and not-porn, programming every week, total. I don't get to see much news. I know the running belief is that I'm actively opposed to Mitt Romney, but by that standard, I'm actively opposed to all of the GOP frontrunners. My limited viewing of him on YouTube clips and on bits of the news as I lurch to bed gives me the impression that he is highly controlled, which is actually a plus in a lot of ways, but I think it strikes a lot of people outside Frank Luntz groups as problematic.

(I still stand by this, by the way. He really impressed me there -- but I think a lot of folks were struck with the contrast between that and how he comes across in public.)

I say all this because I think this is something of which y'all need to be aware -- that there are plenty of people who could vote for him, who are not drones for opposing campaigns or the media, who have that reaction. Were he always like he was in that video, I think he'd be the national frontrunner right now.

It's intended as a friendly note. Make of it what you will.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I loved that "we're not on the air" video as well (a dirty trick IMO . . . but "all's well that ends well" I guess).

You have to understand that Romney's dad, George, had a reputation of being very "freewheeling" with and well-loved by the press. He made the "Brainwashed" comment/gaffe and was crucified by the media thereafter . . . going from GOP frontrunner to a laughingstock. That's got to make an impression on a son.

I cut Romney some slack on the "scripted" issue because of the "once bitten, twice shy" philosophy. However, it is important to stay "on message" and he does a good job at this.

Whatever Romney's doing though, is working for him. No campaign has such positive momentum coupled with a legitimate strategy to win the nomination.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

And that's Leadership?

Well in that case, it could be argued (evidenced by YouTube, # of times ran on cable news networks, and number of positive media in both the mainstream and in talk radio) that Huckabee's $60k ad buy has generated more "buzz" than any of Romney's ads thus far.

Besides the point he didn't need a single ad to pull within 2 points of Romney.

My impression of him was formed back at a time when he was Governor, and his name was just being floated for President. I am definitely willing to admit it may be an unfair characterization. That is why I used the term "gut feeling" above.
Thank you for calling me unbiased, because although I have a candidate that I like better than others, I am not a "bot"

With respect to political discussion, my motto is that "I would rather win the debate than the argument." The politics corollary of that is "I would rather win right governance than win an election." I have no vested interest in any candidate winning, except to the extent that it furthers conservatism in America and freedom here and abroad.

I would flip your last paragraph around. It is important you note my comments before about where I stand. Part of Thompson's appeal to me was the genuine feeling, which contrasted withwhat we already had on tap. The truth is that some people prefer one to the other.

Policy considerations trump the style issue one way or the other for me. If I truly believed that Romney was where/who he says he is, I would pick him without problems. As long as I have the lingering concerns, he can't be my first choice. I am not even saying there is anything wrong with him, only that he has failed to convince me.

As for your concerns, there's no arguing away someone else's feeling. I take it that you like Romney's stated positions, but you just don't feel it.

This is where the line between style and substance gets fuzzy. So my advice for reconsidering Romney is this: forget the plastic/robot/fake meme, and listen to the intelligence and conviction with which he argues for conservative principles. Most people who listen to him without preconceived notions are convinced. It could happen to you, too.

I mean, just look at how Tancredo is taking off, and Huckabee is tanking!

Er, wait...

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Yes. But there is also the case of John McCain. He is a former Prisoner of War. He is more well known than Romney or Thompson. But he's behind Romney and tied with Thompson in all of the early states where people have been able to seek alternatives to the candidates with name identification (except New Hampshire).

If you were a McCain consultant and you had access to a time machine, wouldn't you advise McCain not to join hands with Bush and Kennedy on immigration back in 2006?

is a topic MSM and others in the Democratic party do NOT want to cover. I was surprised to see Cameron of Fox talking about it on his page today.

I found it eminently amusing to see Stephanopoulos visibly cringing into a contortion because Fred said the words, "illegal immigration" when asked a question about his differences with Huckabee. If you missed it on This Week, the way Fred said the words were almost like a taunt. I almost expected him to close by saying, "take that, you smarmy half-baked puppet!"

Bank on it, the subject is kryptonite for the Ds and also some Rs. I think it is probably a good thing that Fred has not overplayed it. The guys who have nothing else going for them but that, are right where they belong.

www.fred08.com
www.fredsgivingday.com
Redneck Hippie

does not mean that immigration is a dud of an issue.

I agree with Rush Limbaugh on this---his instincts, poll data, and all sorts of annecdotal evidence support that immigration is a winning issue.

Look at liberal New York---something like 75& of the population was against the governor's plans to give driver licenses to illegals.

Immigration is our best opportunity to get back the Reagan blue dog democrats in any type of sufficient numbers.

Disagree with you big time on Romney. Thompson has a shaky record on immigration because, until recently, it just wasn't on politicians radar screen. Romney's the same.

Giuliani has been talking a good line but its all pretty lawyerly, leaving outs to still do amnesty type stuff. Like when he opposed the Amnesty bill because he thought there were problems with its ID provision.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

You oppose the Patriot Act but you also oppose gun control. On the first issue you are with the Democrats and on the second issue you are with the Republicans (most of them, anyway).

When you say "don't make me vote for the lesser of the evils in 11/08," my response is that, given your political priorities, this election will be the lessor of two evils for you. It doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate. Well, maybe you'd be satisfied with a Ron Paul nomination. But that ain't hap-nen.

I have to wonder why the Republicans are really supporting the Patriot Act and how many have really read it. If they have not read it, it seems as though they will feel unpatriotic to be against it. Bush nailed it with that name, didn't he?

While I don't want someone who says stuff based on polls, maybe there's a chance that one of the other Republicans might actually read it, mature a little and say "this needs to be changed to protect our people AND our freedoms."

I admire one's convictions but I also expect them to learn from mistakes (other's and their own)

To the Dem's defense (?) if they're against it and have control of congress, what have they done to repeal/fix it?

A sick part of me is glad we have the Patriot Act in place. Big Government is just the thing we need to fix the housing slump here in Northern Virginia. I guess the best I can hope for is Mike in '08, stick it out as long as I can, move to WY and pray they secede from the Union.

On the other hand, I can stockpile ammo easier than privacy.

Maybe I am making a logical leap here, but I can't think of any public policy reason why a supporter of limited government would vote for "Mike" in '08.

I assume you are considering two scenarios: either you think he can't win, in which case America gets a tax-hiking big government President, or you think he can win, in which case . . . no, wait, those two are the same.

Either way it would be bad for the US, but might enable you to get a good price on your real estate in Virginia to set you up for that move to Wyoming.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

It's not a happy thought, only an attempt to find some silver lining.

By definition GWOT requires a large government. Unless Microsoft puts code in the OS to automatically filter and analyze anything we do as threatening it's going to take additional people. If not field agents than people to maintain the equipment. That's just one communication method that needs to be monitored.

My own thoughts seem to a bit too radical for the current crop of candidates and probably 85% of Americans. I don't know for sure but I may concede that Rudy might be receptive. Let's just say that in order to win the game you have to understand the opponents interpretation of the rules and act accordingly. There aren't many ways to fight people who have little to lose and are suicidal.

If you have thoughts on balancing small government and GWOT (and the second amendment), I'm all ears.

It's not a happy thought, only an attempt to find some silver lining.

Always err on the optimistic side. You may not be right, but you will tend to be happier.

By definition GWOT requires a large government.

Er, big compared with what? It requires things like a standing army, not really assumed by the Founders but accepted for generations now.. It may require some powers that were unanticipated by the Founders for law enforcement. It doesn't require social security, medicare or medicaid. You could strengthen the means of prosecuting GWOT and still shrink the size of government overall.

My own thoughts seem to a bit too radical for the current crop of candidates and probably 85% of Americans.

You sound like a moderate to me. I hope you can hear the contempt in the way I pronounce 'moderate'.

If you have thoughts on balancing small government and GWOT (and the second amendment), I'm all ears.

I'll take what I can get. Something that shrinks the size of government, especially in the arena of the welfare state would suit me. I cheered for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher who merely slowed the growth of government. Seek your ideals, but settle for what is achievable.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Very well said Anteater.

I've noticed Mike has been in a lot of the smaller debates others have chosen not to attend. No venue is too small for him to speak his peace. Seems to me that says a lot about his character.

Huck is by far the most likable candidate.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/a_democrat_discover...

He doesn't just attend the events that will rake in the most money for his own candidacy. He also tries to help out other groups:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/125882.asp
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071106/NEWS08/7110603...

They are always so thought out! Please, keep up your great contribution to Redstate.com.

I personally just get discouraged because whoever runs this website never lets positive information out on Huckabee. It is only the negative information that gets out.

Thanks!

I would like to point out though that Mike has gotten at least a couple good posts here:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/frc_action_crowd_s_mike

You failed to mention...

He won 49% of the African American vote in Arkansas.

He polls best among women out of all the Republican Candidates against Hillary.

If H-Dog can't dominate (and I mean pulverize) the Republican nominee by capturing 80% of the African American, and 65% of the Female vote, then she's done. No other Republican candidate is proving he has that ability right now.

Huckabee can be trusted on the issues and to do what he says he's going to do.

Not buying that Cool-Aid on immigration. I myself have heard him give yay, illegals, there's nothing we can do so might as well lean back and enjoy it happy talk.

They Huck is one of only two candidates who supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Who's the other?

I myself have heard him give yay, illegals, there's nothing we can do so might as well lean back and enjoy it happy talk.

Everyone was weak on this issue before except Tancredo.

Who's the other?

Romney

The real question is this.

Given that it is likely that the next president will be serving along side a Democrat controlled Congress, which of these 5 candidates is more likely to give in to the Democrat Congress on:

(a) illegal immigration

(b) judicial nominees

(c) taxes

(d) gun control

Is there anything in any of the records of these 5 candidates that indicates that any of them would "reach across the aisle" and shaft conservatives?

If they said that they did x, y, or z because they were forced to deal with a Democratically controlled legislature (council), they will do the same in the future.

Huck raised taxes because of the Democratic legislature
Romney accepted sanctuary cities, abortion rights, etc. because he was in a "liberal state"

I think we know who would "reach across the aisle".

Only Fred maybe Mitt can argue for all four of your concerns. I've got video proof of Huck raising taxes, video proof of McCain on immigration, video proof of Rudy taking guns.

If you are a REAL CONSERVATIVE you've got 2 choices Fred or Mitt.

Fred's been one longer though.

Agreed 100%.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Fred asking for aplause. I have video proof of Fred not running a state or city or anything to actaully find out what he would do if put to that test. OK, I admit, it's a very short video.

It's really weak to compare the Senate to the posts Rudy, Mike and Mitt have held but go ahead. Only the FredHeads are buying it though.

Did Fred Thompson tell the people who elected him the second time that he was going to quit before the term was done? How much money was wasted on all that? Who's money? Maybe it was at no cost to Tennesseans. I haven't looked into this but MSM reporting on Hassert (sp) quitting and the cost of replacing him got me to thinking about your man Fred bailing on his senate seat.

Can you get him to promise not to quit POTUS if he gets elected? It would be a shame to go through all the headache of electing him just to have him run off to Hollywood again.

He's a good actor. I'll give him that.

Jim Tomasik

Do at least basic research before making a fool of yourself.

I really did deserve that.

Jim Tomasik

But this really illustrates the danger in being so fanatically for your candidate that you jump on the others. It leads to making mistakes that damage your credibility.

For those playing at home, Fred Thompson served the full terms for he was elected both times. He was only in the Senate for 8 years instead of 12 because his first term was for 2 years to finish out the term vacated by Al Gore.

I went on something I was told without looking it up for myself. Same end result.

Jim Tomasik

"Hottest First Lady Eva!"

Nope, I've met Elizabeth Kucinich (and her weird troll of a husband), in fact I took this photo for the left-wing newspaper that I work for.

I'd be so in favor of having an English, tongue-pierced, 30 year -old, 6 foot tall goddess as First Lady, except that the package includes the weird troll as well.

(Yes, I'm a liberal. No, I'm not voting for Dennis)

I think Mrs. Nutjob has the edge over Jeri.

is ALWAYS under attack from Congress. I doubt Rudy would help initiate more restrictive laws but I don't see him vetoing them either. At best that's a neutral.

Jim Tomasik

I believe Fred was the one they picked to get Roberts through the Senate. We have to take Rudy's word on judges. If you believe him fine, but his social stances give me pause.

On gun control - Fred or Huck
Immigration - Fred is the best. All others have questions.
National Security - All are solid.
Abortion - Are you a federalist? Fred maybe Mitt. If not Huck.
Marriage - See above.
Taxes - Likely all. Some knock Mitt and Huck.
Entitlements - Fred has put out the plan. Waiting on the rest.
Fiscal disipline - All but Huck.

Am I right or what?

This is the only knock anyone has on Huckabee while in Arkansas.

However, they don't look and see that spending decreased a number of the years while as Governor.

That a majority of spending increases were for infrastructural development (80% of Arkansans supported this), or for education (court rulings + Federal mandates) and Medicare (federal mandates).

Even still, the increase in the Arkansan Budget from 1996-2006 was still less than a super majority of States, even if it increased at a rate "faster than inflation" (which is a silly measure btw). One of the reasons why he was named one of America's top Governors, an award "my-man" Mitt never received (couldn't win re-election so he changed all his stances and ran for President)

Spending increased under Mitt in Massachusetts faster than the "rate of inflation"
Spending increased in the U.S. Congress when Fred Thompson (John McCain too) was a Senator at a pace faster than the "rate of inflation"
Spending increased in NYC, even with Giuliani's various tax cuts, at pace faster than the "rate of inflation."

All but Huck? You may want to recheck that... (and don't simply look at various campaign talking points)

Why does Huckabee call the Club for Growth, a conservative group that I have donated some money to, the "Club for Greed?" Why does he say, "I'm not one of those mean conservatives?" Why does he promise that people won't lose a job that they have had for 20 years? He should know that in a dynamic economy, you can't promise that people will be able to work for the same employer for decades.

How do we know that his views on economics are in favor of the free market? How do we know that he isn't a Naderite on economics and conservative on social issues?

Thompson opposes a marriage amendment. Romney and Huckabee are the only ones who support it. Jeez.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Thompson supports a marriage amendment. He does not support the FMA, but rather an amendment form of DOMA.

I'll pass on commenting on Thompson on this issue in respect for the theme of this blog.

As for Romney, you don't understand his experience.

His career was not based on working as a manager to keep businesses going. His career was based on looking at organizations that were complete disasters, and having a vision of them as complete successes. Then he'd put his money on that vision and make it happen himself. Frequently that would involve firing and hiring - wait for it - managers. On the other hand, he wasn't above rolling up his sleeves and temporarily managing parts himself when he wanted to make sure something was done right. To me, knowing when to inspire, when to direct, and when to manage are all part of being a leader, and Romney is amazing.

By the way, the Mass. health care plan was a great example of leadership. Any other conservative would have left the broken health care system as it was, and the state legislature would have instituted universal health care soon enough. Romney envisioned a market solution that would get more people health care more efficiently by stopping the uninsured from clogging up the emergency rooms, and that would undercut any future universal health care plan. He then envisioned getting this passed with a veto-proof state legislature. And he got it done.

Here is the issue with turning around companies: the basic vision of the company is already in place--what the company does. What is not in place is the methods for bringing it out of the trouble that it is in. A good turn-around manager (which Mitt is, from all accounts) takes that original vision and makes it work. But the problem is defined for them. In his most famous turn-around, the Olympics are a well-defined entity.

As far as the health care plan is concerned. My first question is, was it really broken? If so, why? (Are the emergency rooms full because of the illegal aliens that his policies allow to grow?) I contend that it was not broken. Who determines what is broken? In government, it is either the visionary or circumstances, if you do not have a vision of what you want the government to become.

Hillary and Pelosi have a vision of what they want the government to become. My fear of a Romney administration is that the agenda will be set by the Democrats and Romney will set about to manage solutions.

Regarding the Mass. health care plan: other conservatives would have left the system as it was, because that is the conservative thing to do. The fact that he didn't implicitly means that he is not a conservative. A government mandate is not a "market solution"--it is a government mandate.

There are two major problems with your constrained view of what saving a company entails.

First, even when the company objective is and remains well-defined, there can be a huge black box in the center of the problem, which takes vision to fill.

Second, a seriously broken company can be just a jumble of parts. What you make of that may or may not have much to do with the original vision. If you're a visionary like Romney, you'll envision something worth a lot more than the sum of the parts in that pile of rubble. And if you're a strong leader like Romney, you'll make something of that vision.

For the Mass. health care: let's break it down.

1) Uninsured people go to emergency rooms under conservative governors everywhere. This is a reality. Pick your favorite conservative, make him a governor of a state, and watch as this happen. It will happen when he gets in office, it will continue to happen while he's in office, and will continue to happen when he leaves office.

2) With Romney, this changed.

3) "Government" is not always the opposite of "market." Often , as we know, the government intrudes on markets. Sometimes it actually creates markets. Sometimes, it uses markets. In this case, the mandate was that everyone use the markets, because otherwise people would end up using social resources in a very inefficient way. This is a rare case where a government mandate uses a market solution.

4) Allowing a parade of uninsured into the emergency room is not "the conservative thing to do."

5) If it weren't for Romney having the vision and setting the agenda, the Mass. Democrats would be implementing universal health care now. A conservative who lacked vision wouldn't have given it much thought.

This is still a vision of fixing a complicated problem, but it is not a vision of creation (ex nilo). I don't concede that the natural conclusion is that someone good at turning a company around is necessarily good at setting the priorities of the government.

As I said in another comment: Fred's driving principle is federalism. In this, I know how he will approach random issues that would come up in a Fred administration. What is Mitt's driving principle?

A government mandate is by definition an intrusion in the market. There is no difference between a minimum wage mandate and this health insurance mandate.

"This is still a vision of fixing a complicated problem, but it is not a vision of creation (ex nilo)."

We don't want creation ex nihilo. We already have a Constitution. Where we have deviated from the original vision of that Constitution, we have problems. Romney will lead with vision and conservative principles to fix them.

I think Romney's driving principle will be packing as much into his term as he can. Democrats love stalemates, because their tired old ideas lose on merit. When Democrats do win on an issue, it's usually by default, because Republicans lacked the drive on an issue. Romney will run circles around the congressional Democrats. He'll set out plans that they can't refuse, and smack them down with vetoes if they ever start to get ideas of their own. And he'll get so much done where his opposition isn't veto-proof.

There are countless differences between a minimum wage mandate and the health insurance mandate. For instance, a minimum wage mandate still leaves all the unemployed collecting welfare. This health insurance plan takes people out of the emergency-room system. If you really want to compare, the health insurance mandate is more like a car insurance mandate, because it prevents the uninsured from distorting the use of market resources.

What I like about Fred is that I KNOW what his principle is. You "think ... [it] will be ..." And that principle is not even a principle--it is a work ethic. (Nothing wrong with that, just not what I'm looking for)

But that illustrates my point: I think that Fred is the only major candidate on either side of the aisle that is driven by principle.

Conservative solutions to the economy, defense, and families.

America already has a vision. Its called the Founding. There's no way Thompson thinks he has some new vision that's going to recreate America into a new country, but if he did I'd vote for Hillary over him.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I am really not trying to suggest that I am looking for someone who will recreate government. But rather, somehow a President has to decide what issues to address and what philosophy must be used to address the issue.

In a corporate turn-around, the end-goal is a financially strong company that does whatever it does. Yes, sometimes you have to change markets or something, but basically a widget company that is struggling is turned around into a widget company that does it better.

There is no direct parallel in government. In government, the governing have to decide what the issues are and then create policy to deal with it. Why is health care a current issue? Why is immigration? The vision that we need in our leaders is to decide which issues are the right issues and then have the vision to determine how to address the issue with the constraints of the Constitution and founding principles.

That is why understanding a candidate's philosophy is so important to me. Fred has expressed that philosophy in the form of Federalism. Hillary, Obama and Edwards have all expressed it (though not in the form of a statement). Their philosophy is Socialism / Marxism. I want Fred's. I fear the Democrat's. I don't know what the philosophy of the remainder of the Republican candidates is.

The point was to make the case for my guy.

I am for Fred because he IS an ideologue. When he first talked about running for President, his entire theme was Federalism. He has since filled out how federalism intersects with policies. But behind his proposals is his defining principle.

So when some issue comes up I know how he will make the decision. When the Dems come up with some weird issue to solve, Fred will tell them that it isn't a federal issue to solve--which is the only way that we will get the size of government to shrink.

Fred is the only candidate that you can go through all of the major issues and say that he is conservative in ALL of the areas.

When various "conservative" elites, "First Day Founders", approached him and made every effort to convince him to run. He's used the message they've given him, said the "right things", but shows no passion or vision to really lead this country.

He's a stump on the stump, has made comments that show his heart's not in it at all. I can't follow that.

So like many other, I went with the candidate who shows passion, shows heart and says enough of the "right things" without having various campaign consultants in his ear telling him what the polls say he should say. I decided to stand with a candidate who has the same core values at heart as myself and is a complete conservative with a resume to prove it. And that Candidate is Mike Huckabee.

Your candidate can stand on his own.

On ANY of these accusations?

His heart is very much in it--some just either just are listening to various media wonks or don't understand his personality. He gave up a very lucrative gig (actually gigs) to run. I suspect the only passion that you would recognize are glib one-liners or yelling and screaming.

Who are these "conservative" elites? Where are they? This is all just bunk.

I think your discussion of the top 5 demonstrate that conservatives need to be honest with themselves.

Many of the 5 candidates are to the Left of George W Bush in some key areas.

Giuliani: Abortion, marriage.

McCain: Tax cuts, judges, torture, government regulation.

Huckabee: Taxes, minimum wage.

In addition, Bush had a Republican Congress for the bulk of his presidency. This meant that even if Bush felt he was in a bad political position on an issue and needed to compromise, he was compromising with Republican congressional leaders.

The new president will be compromising with Pelosi and Reid. Depending on who's in the White House deciding whether to fight it out or compromise, the next 4 years could be a disaster for conservatives. After being treated to 4 years of a Republican cutting deals with Reid and Pelosi, we might look back at the Bush years in a totally different light.

Even if the Republican nominee beats Hillary Clinton, taxes will go way up because the Bush tax cuts are going to expire in 2010. The Republican Congress didn't raise the minimum wage while they were in power. But you can bet that the Democrat Congress will be increasing the cost of doing business in all kinds of legislative initiatives.

The question is whether any of these 5 Republicans would be willing to risk appearing "uncompassionate" and "right-wing" by using his veto pen against these job killing regulations and mandates against business. Those of us who remember Bush Sr's years in the White House have reason to be concerned about how marginalized conservatives become when a Republican president serves with a Democrat Congress.

What will happen if a Republican is elected next year but the senate Democrats end up with 55 seats? What happens when there is an opening on the Supreme Court? Does the Republican White House believe he has an obligation to "consult" with Pat Leahy and Reid?

We have to admit that until we get Congress back in Republican hands, conservatives will be playing defense. And it is hard to gain much yardage while the other team is at bat.

I think Rudy would readily do battle with a Democratic congress, would win most of the time, would make the Democrats look bad, and his favorite four letter word would be V-E-T-O.

The situation you're describing calls for a fighter, and Rudy is a fighter, who has done pretty well so far when he's been outnumbered.

Assuming they were elected which candidate would govern the most conservatively?

Which candidate has the best ideas?

Which candidate would be a leader of the conservative movement as well as the leader of the free world?

These some of the questions I consider. On all of them I answer Fred 1 Mitt 2. If you get the chance go read what Fred has written. If you are a principled conservative you cannot dispute Fred is the best. If you are only a practical conservative or a RINO then look elsewhere.

And as far as electability is concerned, if Hillary is the foe ANY OF OUR GUYS CAN BEAT HER. Electability is only a concern with Obama or Edwards. Obama has Reagan level charisma. He could create Obama republicans. Edwards is simply southern and if he wins any southern states the GOP loses.

We have some great candidates and Hillary allows us to pick based on principle. I pray we do.

"The problem with the pragmatic manager is that they are rarely visionaries."

I think you are right when you say this.

One of Romney's best traits is that he is one of the rare exceptions. He is a pragmatic visionary.

5 means "5 out of 5" as in great comment or blog.

n/t means "no text". There's nothing else but the subject line.

There are others. Look here for "frequently asked questions".

13 was my older brother's baseball uniform number. He passed away this year after a long battle with ALS (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's Disease)

==== 13 ====

I'm very touched. And thank you.

Redneck Hippie

==== 13 ====

(Not the later incarnation of Bumblebee), you have been here 1 year. You are free to discuss him.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Of course, if your one issue is fighting terrorists and their sponsors, Giuliani is excellent.

No doubt the NYC clean up and 9/11 are wonderful examples of what Rudy can do. However since Fred, Mitt, and McCain have the same views on fiscal matters (roughly) and all the candidates (besides Ron Paul) are the same on GWOT, why tick off social conservatives?

Rudy is strong on the issues they are all strong on. I can't think of any difference between any of them on the GWOT.

To me national security is a wash. Fiscal conservatism is mostly a wash too. (I'm looking at you Huck) The only thing that clearly separates the candidates on the issues are the social issues.

If you are socially conservative Rudy is not an option.

Now you've got federalists, Fred and Mitt, or Huckabee to pick from.

Thompson/Romney or Thompson/Steele is my dream ticket.

I typed up a fairly substantial response to this, but the discussion is going so nicely, and I would prefer we continue a very positive discussion. If you want to have a discussion with me on this, do 2 things. 1) Write a blog 2) Don't extrapolate from a 2 sentence summary into something that you feel gives you the right to call me insane.

I believe Rudy's sancuary city policy helped create the problem.

Not only that your missplaced compassion is dangerously close to that of a liberal. Those poor illegal immigrants have among them dangerous criminals and terrorists. Not all are. Not most are. But a few are criminals and terrorists. The most horrible of things will one day happen if we do not get immigration under control.

It is not compassionate to import cheap nearly slave labor to keep oranges cheap. It is not compassionate to force American workers to compete with 3rd world wages. It is not compassionate to American children to funnel their parents taxes to illegals education, health care, housing, or food.

Your arguments are concerning the symptoms to the problem, not the problem itself. Illegal immigration is about National Security now. We can no longer allow the GOP to cater to business or the Dems to pander to latinos. Compassion for illegals must give way to security.

South Park Conservative, you made some really good points here that I totally agree with.
Hooha Mac, This is a really good diary. Thanks for writing it. By the way, I didn't read that South Park Conservative was literally calling you insane.

Anyway, I'm not sure that it's really possible to convince people who aren't undecided voters and who have already settled on a candidate to support your candidate. I mean, I've noticed that a lot of who you vote for is determined by what you value most, or by what is most important to you.

People who value foreign policy experience, and think that the war in Iraq is the most important issue, tend to support John McCain. By the way, I like John McCain as well--he might be my second choice.

People who like federalist ideals, and value plans on immigration and social security the most, tend to support Fred Thompson.

People who value strong leadership and the GWOT the most tend to like Rudy Giuliani.

People who want an extremely competent manager and executive support Mitt Romney.

I, personally, am for Mike Huckabee, because I think that being able to unite the country and communicate with and reach out to all Americans are the most important qualities in a leader--and I think think that Huck has those qualities in abundance. I feel that we will never win the GWOT if we keep being so polarized, and I think that Huck can end the polarization. I also think that Huck is extremely knowledgeable on health care; since I am a med student, this is a really important issue to me. Of course, I've also noticed that people who value sanctity of life issues the most like Huck as well.

Anyway, I feel funny attempting to tell someone why my values are better or more important than theirs. I think that all of our values are important--just different. If someone attacks Huck unfairly or unintentionally mischaracterizes his positions, then I'll defend him. By the way, I'd expect anyone on RS to defend their guy and say why they are voting for someone and what they value. Just my two cents anyway. Y'all have a good night and God bless.

very lovely!

I'm glad you liked it. :-)

Let's take these on.

1) continued initiative in waging the GWOT

All of the candidates seem pretty strong on the GWOT. McCain has recently said, however, that he has a serious disagreement with Giuliani regarding the treatment of detained terrorists. I think Giuliani has indicated that he would be open to using whatever tactics are necessary to gain intelligence information. McCain wanted the Attorney General Mukasey to denounce waterboarding as illegal. Those are significant differences in GWOT.

2) reigning in our tax-happy, inept, intrusive, expanding, fat-dripping federal government.

As I understand Rudy's record, Giuliani enacted several tax cuts as mayor of New York City. McCain was one of 2 Republicans out of 50 to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and he was one of 3 Republicans out of 51 to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2003. It should be noted, however, that McCain has been an opponent of pork-barrel spending. I think Romney supported income tax cuts as governor of Massachusetts. Fred Thompson voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Huckabee has both cut taxes and increased them. I have not determined if the tax cuts were more economicially significant than the tax increases.

As for other areas of federal government intrusion, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson all supported McCain-Feingold. Romney has said that he wants to repeal McCain-Feingold. In that case, Romney looks like he is more intersted in freeing up political discussion.

I am not coming to any kind of realization. My intention was to have a positive, substantive discussion about the candidates, and reading over the comments here, I am impressed again at how poitive everyone has managed to be. I am not asking to be convinced of the other candidates because I am anywhere close to giving up on Fred. I have a lot of reasons to want positives about all the candidates to be talked about.(Note that the invitation includes Fredheads)
Primaries are about finding the best person to represent our party, and should never be process of elimination to get rid of the worst ones and see who is standing. Join the fun here and talk up your guy, or talk up all of them. One of these 5 people is going to the R nominee, and it is my hope that as many of us as possible will be comfortable with the one that gets the nod.
I also believe that one of these 5 people will be the next President, because our worst is heads and shoulders above their best, and I don't just mean policy.

But your comments on the candidates made it clear where you stand. Saying you don't believe in Rudy on the GWOT is not a fair comment. You are going after his strength, and not saying why. Rudy haters need to do a bit of due diligence.

New York City was under active terror threats throughout Rudy's entire time in office. You guys unfairly belittle his performance by purposeful ignorance of the subject. Ever here of the Blind Sheik? Ever hear of the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? If you are serious about learning, check out "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright.

And you are comparing Rudy's WOT experience to whom exactly? Fred? Huckabee? cricket sounds?

I may sound harsh, but that is fine. I have problems with Rudy and ALL our candidates, but attacking Rudy on terror is simply without merit.

And when I talk about Fred's ineffectiveness, it is for all to see. He is doing poorly, please anyone tell me how this will suddenly change?

Molon Labe!

I wasn't attacking him on the GWOT, but rather questioning if his credentials are as impressive as they first seem.

I said what I did on purpose. I listed the negatives(or lack of positives) from my point of view on each candidate. The challenge is for you to tell me why YOUR chosen candidate is the best.

All of the threads on candidates seem to devolve into slams on everyone. I wanted to avoid that type of discussion and I think it has worked pretty well.

You are doing a good job btw -

"New York City was under active terror threats throughout Rudy's entire time in office. You guys unfairly belittle his performance by purposeful ignorance of the subject. Ever here of the Blind Sheik? Ever hear of the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? If you are serious about learning, check out "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright."

That would be perfect for the thread without the "you guys" sentence. I am not purposefully ignorant, I am reasonably ignorant. Educate me.

I am undecided myself. I was just pointing out that many people simply hate Rudy for some unknown reason and question him on the GWOT because they know it is his strong suit. What I am saying is I KNOW he is strong on the War On Terror. I know he is a crusader, for good or ill. I think this is for good when it comes down to the gwot. And I am saying 9/11 was not a one day thing. I will try to find some relevant info to pass on.

Molon Labe!

Thought provoking, interesting point, Doc. :-)

Sorry Doc, When I previously posted "interesting point", I was referring to this particular point regarding Fred Thompson and John Edwards. (I don't know why it didn't reply to the right post.) Not that your other points aren't interesting though. :-)

I am not interesting all the time, I try to be at least sometimes, at least to myself :) It is interesting how no one ever seems happy with the leaders. We think we have problems, but they have them as well. My worry is the left will come together no matter what, if we are still not seeing the forest for the trees, in a few months, it could be a serious problem.

Molon Labe!

I'm not sure about this. Rudy Giuliani would have a tough time motivating social conservatives to vote for him in a general election. Let assume that about 20 percent of the typical Republican vote is primarily concerned about issues such as abortion and marriage. That would mean a 51 to 49 percent victory could during into a 52 to 47 percent loss (if you assume that about one third of these social conservatives stay home on election day).

McCain presents problems of his own. He and Rudy Giuliani are the most well known candidates in the race. McCain is a former prisoner of war. Yet, McCain is running 5th in Iowa, 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire (where he won the 2000 GOP primary), 4th in South Carolina.

Is it possible that McCain has alienated too many Republican voters over the past decade to win motivate enough of the Republican base to win an election against a motivated Left-wing candidate? Economic conservatives worry about McCain votes against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Social conservatives worry about his denunciations of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Illegal immigration opponents worry about McCain's alliance with Bush and Kennedy on immigration reform. It's hard to maintain a cohesive conservative coalition with that level of alienation among the Republican base.

I'd say that Fred Thompson probably would have the easiest time uniting the Republican base, because his "maverick moments" are few and far between.

I'm no McCainiac (immigration), but I don't have much doubt that he'd get the GOP vote in the generals. Our problems with him are mostly personal, not ideological, so they can be patched up.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

*Tough on Defense, as well as being incredibly knowledgeable on the subject.
*Tough on Illegal Immigration without being anti-immigrant.
*Good on all the Life Issues.
*Very well-spoken.

The only reason he is not a serious contender is because he is a Congressman, and we seem to have a Senator fetish in this country with regards to Presidential candidates, even if they've only been in office 3 years or so.

Who was the last Congressman we elected President? Abraham Lincoln?

www.mikehuckabee.com

Who was the last Congressman we elected President? Abraham Lincoln?

The only serving Congressman elected to the Presidency was James Garfield. Lincoln was a former Congressman when he ran. So, of course, was George H W Bush, though he held several cabinet level positions and the vice-presidency after his time in Congress.

In passing, if this is why Duncan Hunter's campaign is not prospering, it is not a good reason. The good reason is that his views on trade are the same as those of John Edwards.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.