Big Tent-What does that mean
By Hooah Mac Posted in 2008 — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After going a few rounds in one of the other diaries, (and everyone knows which one) about SoCons and their unwillingness to abide a Rudy candidacy, I feel the need to clarify my position. I am very hopeful that working this out will make us stronger, but we need to get along.
Every single one of our candidates has strong points. If I could work through them like the chubby guy grazing at the buffet I would take bits and pieces from all of them. That isn't exactly an option, an would be rather messy as well. In case you missed it, I am explicitly saying that this includes the one who shall remain nameless.
Like many Social Conservatives, I am also a strong Fiscal Conservative. Like many combat veterans I am also a GWOT Conservative.
The GWOT trumps it all. If we lose to radical Islam, everything else is moot anyway. Therefore the one remaining nameless is out. In this category, I would be content with Hunter, Tancredo, Fred, Rudy or McCain. I do not trust the others based on various statments they have made, although I am fairly certain none of them other the one remaining nameless would be a total distaster on this.
Second are my Social Conservative views. Pro-life, pro-family, freedom of religion as opposed to freedom from it, and 2nd Amendment issues, Judges; these are vital to me. Huckabee and Brownback of course shine in this area, Fred is solid, the others are varying levels of ok except for two - Rudy gets a failing grade, and Romney is turning in someone else's homework.
Last, but still very important to me are the Fiscal issues. This is limited government, the rule of law, low taxes, lower spending, limited government, constitutional principles, judges, and of course limited government. Social conservatism doesn't make sense to me without fiscal conservatism. Rudy, Fred, McCain, Hunter, Tancredo all seem to be acceptable in this. The one who shall remain nameless is just about perfect in this category, although he is demanding the perfect steak before he lights the grill.
So, you can follow who I am supporting, and it is precisely because of this analysis that I support him. Republicans come in many shapes and sizes. Nearly all of them have at least one of those three areas that is vital to them. Many are like me who do not wish to give up one area for another. However, the ones who are primarily SoCons will not vote for Rudy as much as for others. Forget the accusations of temper tantrums or hostage-taking or what have you; Rudy will depress energy, enthusiasm and contributions from those who hold Social issues at the top of their list. It's simply the way these things work. On the other hand, Huckabee looks great to Social Conservatives who don't care as much about the fiscal stuff; but nominating him depress the energy, etc. of the Fiscal Conservatives wing.
We would all be served to not fight over obvious bad for the whole choices, and look to rally around someone who serves all of our interests. Fred fits that bill, I believe Hunter does, and McCain does - although his negatives are oddly outside the bounds of the categories above. Maybe in the analysis Romney does too, if he can be trusted.
Not only are our interests intertwined, but no faction here can win on their own, that is a simple, incontrovertible fact.
Now Fred needs to sell himself. I support him, but he needs to step up and show he can dominate at some point in the primary campaign.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
I don't agree with quite everything, but it is really well done.
Didn't cover. Leadership and competence. Aren't those also important things to consider when choosing a President?
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
However, they are pretty useless on their own. There are plenty of democrats that have leadership and competence, but I wouldn't consider them.
I wasn't intending this to be the definitive work in 5 volumes on the pros and cons of all Republican presidential candidates. My issue is that if we don't have a candidate that is "acceptable" to all branches of conservatism, we are setting ourselves up for failure.
Yes, Rudy appears ready to "fight" radical Islam and yes, if we "lose" to radical Islam the results will be devastating. But, I am almost as concerned with "losing" to the far-left social wing. I fear a President Guiliani where we interrupt this fight against radical Islam to announce that now homosexuals can marry. We interrupt this fight again to announce that we have added new levels to the phony wall of separation between church and state. Now, back to the regularly scheduled program of "fighting" radical Islam while the pillars of our society are systematically knocked down in concert with the far-left and President Guiliani.
Never forget, David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush
So what? Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy. I don't know why people try to use that argument solely against Giuliani. They all could make a mistake. But having Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada as your judicial advisors certainly reduces the likelihood that Giuliani is going to make one.
In addition to the silly Souter argument, the poster staceygibb also exaggerates Giuliani's social views to fit his/her agenda.
Here is Giuliani - "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it should remain that way, it should remain that way inviolate, and everything should be done to make sure that that's the case," Mr. Giuliani said in response to a reporter's question. "But I also believe that you should allow for the protection of legal rights for people who are gay and lesbian."
So where exactly is the support for gay marriage? Protecting the legal rights of gays yes? Supporting gay marriage no? There is a difference. Of course, there are some folks that want gays flogged and locked up - not exactly a Christ-like position - but none of the candidates are going to help you out on that one.
Of course, there are some folks that want gays flogged and locked up - not exactly a Christ-like position
Who's advocating that?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
For me free trade issues are another way to separate the wheat from the chaff. The best answer for a question about free trade I have read was an interview question from a Canadian reporter to an Estonian.
David: Picking up on the fact the Skype was generated in Estonia, a lot of people in some provinces of Canada, particularly Saskatchewan and Manitoba are concerned that free trade agreements, even with other Canadian provinces, will make local industries victims, can you tell us a bit about how a country that had previously been wrecked by communism is able to compete with Western Europe?Mart Laar: I think that was … one part of our economic reforms, in 1992 we abolished all custom taxes, making Estonia a free trade area. A lot of managers from the former Soviet factories came to me and said that I would destroy Estonian industry. I said it must be a very weak and uncompetitive industry which needs to be destroyed. I think this is such a perception in the minds of politicians that, they know what is competitive industry and business doesn’t know. It is not true. I think the task of the government is to create in your country the competitive industries which are really competitive, and free competition is the best source to do this.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
in certain cases. I believe the only limits on trade should be based on national security rather than economics. I feel that tariffs are perfectly acceptable for the purpose of raising government funds, but are always a bad idea when used to "regulate" trade or when they are used as reverse subsidies.
To the national security limits. Everyone who understands economics (unfortunately a fairly small number of people) knows that in free trade both parties win. There is a common misconception that somebody gets the better of the other, but that cannot happen absent fraud or duress. In other words, noone makes a deal that doesn't get them something they value more than what they are giving up. Therefore, in global trade, both parties are enriched. We need to think long and hard about trade with countries and regimes that will use that increased wealth to kill us.
As far as the candidates on this issue, I am not sure where all of them stand. I believe most of the non-nutjob or single issue candidates on the stage are for free-trade in one way or another, but I need to do more looking on that.
I posted the following on another diary in response to the accusation that Social Conservatives were trying to dictate who the nominee is and I think it echos much of what you have said.
"I think anyone but Giuliani is acceptable to the Social Conservative wing of the party. At least as for myself, I'd enthusiastically support Brownback or Huckabee. I'd vote for Thompson with no hesitation. I'd hold my nose and vote for Romney or McCain. I really don't have strong opinions about the others, but I'm sure I'd vote for any of them over Clinton, and that includes Ron Paul.
But, if Huckabee is anathema to the Club for Growth wing of the party, then I would not support him in the primary because I want to keep them in the tent.
If Ron Paul is anathema to the GWOT wing of the party, then I would not support him in the primary because I want to keep them in the tent.
I'm willing to respect the needs of the other major constituencies of the party, but in return I expect the needs of the Social Conservative wing of the party to receive equal consideration."
That's very put (even though I'd still vote for Guiliani myself as a so-con).
I can certainly understand a SoCon who votes for Giuliani in the general. My own decisions are based somewhat on principle and somewhat on consequences. On principle the case against Giuliani is easy. On consequences, I think Giuliani will be worse for the pro-life cause in the long run than Clinton will be. But, I can see reasonable people who share my values coming to a different conclusion about the consequences. I just wish the Giuliani people would stop the insults to those of us who cannot support him.
Fred seems like a nice guy but I just can't imagine him getting one more vote then president Bush did in 2004. The country is not in the same mood as 2004. You have a stronger democratic candidate and a candidate who is weaker then Bush. At least with Rudy you have a shot. He is a moderate and can appeal to Independents. But what do I know.
comprimise candidate to give each faction of the party a little of what they want. Fred's not my favorite, but he does seem like a candidate who offers a little something to all parts of the base. Romney has become a candidate that offers that does so, though not everyone trusts him, and McCain offers a little something good to each faction too, only problem I guess he offers a little something to each faction that they want too.