Redstate

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Can someone explain to me when precisely it was that Rudy picked a "Club for Greed"-type fight with the SoCons?

Brain a word or two ahead of fingers. Dang.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

has been more coalition-friendly than has Huck's on this matter.

On the other hand, Huck has done a lot more to atone for his mistakes- the no-tax Norquist pledge, support of the Fair Tax (which DOES count for something), focusing on the conservative part of his record (which DOES exist).

But I agree, and maybe it's all a matter of perspective, that it seems like half the posts on the right-hand side of the screen are talking about just how bad Huckabee is, with few of his critics relenting on anything.

The fact is, Fred is the only candidate who is even credible on all the important GOP issues, and I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but there is no way he'll win if his current MO persists. I wish it weren't so, but I've been watching him for months, hoping he'll get moving, but so far I see very little. His debate performance was solid this week, if not especially memorable.

The thing that makes Huck different from all these other 80%ers (of which he is one, to be sure), is how memorable a speaker he is. People hear him and think, "Dang, I'm gonna go vote for that guy!"

There has been a few Rudy Huck-like, fight-picking moments:

--Such as Pro-Lifers wanting to "throw women in jail" for having abotions.

--Gun Control being credited for the crime decrease in NY and the Second Amendment being a States' rights thing.

--Coming to the Values Voters Summit and beginning his speech by lecturing everyone on what "Christianity is all about."

So Rudy has picked a few fights that his damage control team has tried desperately to downplay. It's not just a Huckabee thing. Rudy hasn't spent as much time reaching out and making peace with the base as his supporters would like to claim - he has simply thrown out damage control folks to explain why his positions ultimately shouldn't matter.

Perhaps if Huckabee promised to appoint "Strict Supply-Siders" to his Economic Advisory Board that should be enough for FisCons?

Frankly, I just wish Rudy backers would have had some interest in working to find a compromise candidate from Day One, instead of relentlessly working to cornate him and demanding subjugation from SoCons and Gun Conservatives, lest they be labeled traitors and enablers of Socialism.

In my world of trying to hold the GOP coalition together, Huckabee and Giuliani should be viewed as sick jokes fit only for April 1st of every year. I actually find it very, very sad how many members of this possibly soon-to-be-defunked coalition really never gave a rat's behind what the other side cared about or found acceptable.

Heck, I'd be willing to bet that even if the Huckabee threat worsens, you still won't find many Rudy backers softening their support in the hopes of finding a compromise candidate.

Rudy backers told folks like myself who were very honest about not being willing to vote for Giulaini under ANY circumstance to shut-up and find another candidate and beat Rudy if we don't like him. Now many of them follow-through with Huckabee and suddenly FisCons are up-in-arms.

If Tax Hike Mike does pull this thing off - FisCons WILL regret not trying, for even one second, to find a compromise candidate in this race.

The only way I'd ever vote for Huckabee in the primary is if he proved to be the best chance to beat Rudy. That yet-to-be-determined "best chance to beat Rudy" candidate will ultimately get my support.

But to those of you who continuously shout that anyone who doesn't support Rudy if he wins isn't really a Republican (despite Rudy's own monstrous past in this regard) - I know I speak for more than a few when I say that I'll be glad to leave your Grand New Party and take my support elsewhere.

Compromise, anyone?

If you don't vote for the GOP candidate, whomever it is, you may as well leave the party.

The primaries are about picking a candidate and supporting them. The entire exercise is a "compromise".

The general is about winning.

If you can't understand that, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm a Rudy supporter, however I will enthusiastically support and vote for whomever is the GOP candidate.

Isn't that a compromise?

Saying "never vote for Candidate X" is about as far from compromising you could get.

---"If you can't understand that, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm a Rudy supporter, however I will enthusiastically support and vote for whomever is the GOP candidate.

Isn't that a compromise?"---

1.) Don't worry, I (and many like me) will be gone too fast for the door to hit us. We'll follow Reagan's lead and look for another home when the party leaves us.

2.) No, that's not a compromise. A compromise is finding common ground to stand on - a candidate acceptable to both sides of the Party. You wouldn't support just any GOP candidate - you just aren't faced with the horrors that Gun and Social Conservatives are faced with in Rudy. If a GOP candidate started talking about, say, breaking our alliance with Israel because it is too costly for our worldwide reputation, and the need to give Marxism a chance - you would not vote for him/her. Seem far-fetched? Yeah. To SoCons and Gun Conservatives, so did nominating a NARAL Champion of Choice and avowed Gun Control activist. If you were faced with the same perils on your most important issues, you'd be out the door, too. Rudy is THAT bad to many of us - you just refuse to understand our perspective in true perspective. It's easy to call for unity when nobody is really threatening your issues.

---"If you don't vote for the GOP candidate, whomever it is, you may as well leave the party."---

And yet, Rudy is still here, anyway. But I digress; it's okay when Rudy does it. You should really be throwing Rudy out the door - I mean, I haven't actually had to not support the GOP yet. Rudy made it a habit.

1) In supporting Giuliani, do I disrespect you?

2) The fiscal conservatives opposing Huckabee's nomination are making one of the claims the anti-Rudy folks have been making for months: that it will fracture the coalition. However, they're staying an important step shy of where a lot of the SoCons, like yourself, have gone. That you won't vote for Rudy. I can't believe you don't think that's an important difference.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

(1) It depends on why you're supporting Rudy, but I suspect not.

(2) Well, we shall see whether you're correct. If you look at my latest RedHot, you'll note that I've linked to at least one RedState poster who believes many FisCons will stay at home if Huckabee is the nominee.

I hope you can also appreciate that there is a profound difference between a man who is less than perfect on fiscal issues, and a man whose record on the civil-rights issue of our time (i.e., abortion) is nothing short of abysmal.

Once again, I am sorry if you were offended by my RedHot, but that's truly how I feel right now.

--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

First, there's a difference between saying that some fiscal conservatives are going to stay home in the general if Huckabee is the nominee, and that you personally are going to stay home/vote third party if Rudy is the nominee. If you refuse to acknowledge this, then there's nothing I can do.

Second:

I hope you can also appreciate that there is a profound difference between a man who is less than perfect on fiscal issues, and a man whose record on the civil-rights issue of our time (i.e., abortion) is nothing short of abysmal.

Um, I can, I guess. Insofar as they are different, then I appreciate there is a profound difference. Give me the one who is better on fiscal issues every time, because those are the issues I care more about.

That said I think it's absurd to say that Giuliani is abysmal on abortion if you characterize Huckabee only as less than perfect. It comes down to trust. Will Giuliani nominate good judges? Will Huckabee actually govern as a fiscal conservative?

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

I am not sure exactly what you're getting at. I agree that there's a difference: one is a veiled threat, and the other is a specific one. Personally, I respect the latter much more than the former. I am not sure why you think raising the possibility of a boycott by FisCons to dissuade SoCons from supporting Huckabee is somehow more virtuous than an individual SoCon being forthright and admitting what he will do on election day. If you cannot understand the difference between the two, then I think there is little left to say.

As for the remainder of your comment, it speaks for itself. Money over life. I get it.

--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

One is an observation, one is a threat.

I will be voting for the Republican nominee. However, I think a segment of the people who generally vote for the Republican nominee because of issues like taxes and spending won't vote for Huckabee. It's not a threat, and there is nothing veiled about it.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

Do tell.

-------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

Why are you mentioning this "fact"? And if it is a fact that FisCons will stay at home if Huck is the nominee, then haven't you conceded the point?

--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

It isn't all a big conspiracy to beat Huckabee.

I worry about McCain's age in the general election. I worry about Giuliani's ability to withstand the scandals that are popping up, and his hold on the social conservative base. I worry about Fred's fire in the belly, and how he translates to non base voters. I worry about Mitt coming across as a used car salesman who seemingly has no steady principles.

And I worry about Huckabee's candidacy causing fiscal conservatives to stay home.

You are so wrong on this whole argument, it's getting absurd. You started off by delighting in the fact that people disagree with your candidate for a perfectly understandable reason, and have now argued yourself to a point where you seemingly can't understand that some people can have concerns about a candidate without wishing them ill will in the election or some ulterior motive.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

What is "absurd" is your inability to appreciate my original point, which remains unrebutted. And with that, I am done with this thread.

--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

you'll note that I've linked to at least one RedState poster who believes many FisCons will stay at home if Huckabee is the nominee.

In all fairness, the person who said that was not threatening a hissy fit. He was explicitly referring to the historical fact witnessed on November 7, 2006... to wit, that a large number of disillusioned Republicans accidentally forgot to vote for the high-spending porkers that Congressional "Republicans" had become. Given that that really happened, it is not insane to warn against nominating a high-spending porker to head the ticket. What is insane is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

.

Alex, I think docj and hoyasaxa are making the same point I am.

The reason the anti-Rudy folks came under such scrutiny was because they vowed to help Hillary win the general election.

That's why it's striking people as odd that you find a major parallel with how anti-Rudy people were seen and anti-Huck people are seen. The anti-Huck stuff is much similar to the anti-Romney and anti-Brownback stuff (I don't like them, they can't win, etc.). The anti-Rudy stuff went further than anyone else (except a few anti-McCain commnenters) in saying the writers personally would help Hillary get elected by staying home.

Further, it seems to be striking commenters (and me now that I think about it) as odd that you would take joy in seeing other Republicans worried that your candidate may lose the general election because he might not be able to attract voters that ditched the Big R in 2006 on fiscal issues.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I don't know anyone who vowed to help Hillary over Rudy in the general. What and I other SoCons have said is that we will not vote for Rudy if he is the nominee. Now, if you want to characterize an unwillingness to help Rudy as a "vow" to help Hillary, feel free to so so, but it is hardly a fair characterization. Indeed, one could just as easily say that those who nominate Rudy are the ones helping Hillary, because they did so knowing that many SoCons would refuse to vote for him on election day.

Finally, I've already explained what I take joy in, but you and others are apparently determined to take my original point and turn it into a strawman. Nevertheless, I will repeat it here one last time: I take joy in the fact that anti-Huckers are using the same "don't break up the fragile GOP coalition" argument that anti-Rudy folks made a few months back (and were mocked for).

--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

Anyone that wants to should be able to walk away from "A one term hillary presidency will let us elect a real pro life candidate in 2012" statement, but there were more than a few making it. The sane holds true of people threatening to join any phyric third part attempts.

I haven't heard any of the anti-hucksters say that Huckabee will break the coalition. I would expect that anyone that didn't have RTL and trips to mars as their top issues to be less than enthused
______________________________
"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

Because I think you hit it spot-on, there. (Caveat, I live in a state where my vote, literally, won't matter.)

Look, I'll vote for Huckabee in the general - but that is precisely the end of my (a long-time contributor and supporter of the Club for Greed) involvement in the general election campaign. I'm not going to venture to NH (and I work less than 5-mintues from the MA/NH border) to attend rallies, man phone banks, donate money, volunteer time, etc. etc. etc., to someone who went out of his way to personally piss me off - particularly when it was completely avoidable - during the primary campaign. That I also say "No Mas" to Compassionate Conservative 2.0 is just the icingon the cake.

And herein lies the difference between this pro-life, tree-hugging, paleo-FisCon and the cadre of Dobsonites (as itn nominate Rudy and we bolt) we were treated to last quarter - Huckabee had to go out of his way to torque-me out of the general election campaign, whereas the mere presence of anyone from the northeast - you know, people who had to actually govern in hostile territory for Republicans - is an insult to the SoCons.

But they have some nerve accusing the FisCons of inflexibility, IMHO.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Defense Cons get an understood veto of GOP candidates - which is why we all laugh at Ronpaul.

The Chamber generally gets a veto of GOP candidates - which is an openly stated part of why SoCons decided not to back Duncan Hunter in their early meetings to organize and find a candidate to unite behind.

FisCons generally get a veto - which is why Huckabee is united against in the GOP press, which is almost entirely FisCon.

Why, again, should a veto on a candidate - particularly terrible on their issues - be so unreasonable a request for SoCons and Gun Conservatives?

I'm sorry, I just can't see, say, FisCons backing Huckabee in the General if he openly ran as a candidate who believed that we weren't "paying our share." I also couldn't see Pro-Israel Republicans backing a candidate who sided openly and fervently with the terrorist-led Palestinians - even if said candidate won the Primary. So I don't think it is reasonable to expect, say, Pro-Lifers to back a candidate who openly believes Abortion to be a Constitutional and Basic Human right.

Sometimes you have to realize when you simply ask too much of people.

or we would have certainly used it against Dole and both the Bush's.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

They used it against Buchanan in favor of Dole. And Bush was a FisCon guy at first - SoCons were running Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, and the rest out of fear that he wouldn't be a reliable SoCon ("America's not ready to outlaw Abortion").

I cannot imagine Bush would have been taken seriously if he had said "America is not ready to give up government programs," though one could argue it is equally as true.

Why wasn't McCain the candidate in 2000 ?

The camber gets a veto ? Thats why they have been reamed so many new ones over the immigration issue ?

Oh and btw the Defcons aren't vetoing RP. The sane cons are. Even so I know many that will vote for him before Hillary.

Do you want to come up with some more false arguments ?
______________________________
"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

I'd happily "tell you something" in response to something, anything, that had at least a toe-hold in reality.

Alas, not much above can meet those table stakes.

And again, why is it everyone seems to think I'm on the USS Rudy for Pres?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

...I was a little baffled by your assertion that Defense Conservatives, most of whom I remember backing Bush II, found Bush II so completely unacceptable that they tried to assert a veto over his nomination, and were summarily denied.

I'm afraid you're going to have to defend that assertion.

...was meant for Joliphant, sorry!

Social cons didn't object to Rudy because he was "from the northeast". We objected to someone who promised not to be effectively pro-life, and whose more positive promises are carefully calibrated to avoid getting any of that icky social conservatism on him. In comparsion, Huck has tried harder with the FairTax and no new tax pledges. And when it comes to who's more likely to keep a promise....

This doesn't prevent Huck from being a disaster. We are not in such a strong position as to tolerate a party-splitting candidate. Huck also leaves too many good issues on the table, as noted elsewhere. And his policies if actually elected ... just take a look at his stance on SCHIP if you think he deserves to be called a fiscal conservative. Ick.

But while I agree on getting a party-uniter, I share Alexham's amusement at watching Rudy supporters suddenly clamor for party unity. It's not often you get to see otherwise sensible people so beclown themselves. There's little reason for Huckabee supporters to listen while you're trying to split the party in another direction.

1) The same lingo was used against Romney as well.
2) There's a whole lot more to fiscal policy than taxes - and even on that score Huck is fair at absolute best.
3) The Fair Tax is a non starter. The "prebate" part of it should make any FisCon bletch.
4) To say Huck has "tried harder" is to ignore the very words that come out of his mouth when discussing his detractors.
5) You're confusing me with a Rudy supporter. Rudy is my very distant second choice principally because, on balance, he's less unacceptable than JMac and Huck (I'd go with FDT for number 2 but I've yet to see anything yet that tells me he actually wants the part).
6) At what part of this did I say I was trying to "split the party"?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

There are social conservatives who won't tolerate Romney either. But you're looking at a significantly smaller number. He has not only verbally committed himself, but he did at least something in MA. If anything, accomplishments are more impressive in such a solid blue state.

I'm not interested in defending Huckabee, even where defense is merited. That can wait till the general if the party errs by nominating him; I don't want to make that more likely to happen. I was only making a comparison between what he's been willing to promise and Rudy.

And most importantly, I have no interest in discouraging people from encouraging party unity. Quite the contrary. My harpoon was deliberately targeted at Rudy supporters, just as I wrote it. That wasn't intentionally directed at your post or your personal position, but was my comment on the topic in general. Sorry for the confusion.

I probably read more in than was warranted.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I don't know anyone who vowed to help Hillary over Rudy in the general. What and I other SoCons have said is that we will not vote for Rudy if he is the nominee.

If enough SoCons stay home---and encourage their fellow SoCons to stay home---HRC might squeak out wins in close states (e.g., Ohio). If HRC keeps the states John Kerry won, and captures Ohio or another state where the vote will likely be close, she becomes President.

You've now been told, directly and clearly, how a SoCon boycott of the 2008 GOP nominee helps Hillary. Of course, the SoCons have the right to boycott. But, they should then acknowledge the obvious consequences of their action.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Did I get that right? It seems to me the adult attitude would be to find someone we can all get behind and support that candidate... not to seek out one who is unacceptable to those who you perceive to have been supporting a candidate who is unacceptable to you... never mind the fact that most of the people opposed to Huckabee never supported Rudy in the first place. I fail to see the deliciousness.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I never supported rudy, yet alot of the comments were about my blog.

...why SoCons and Gun Conservatives are supposed to vote for Rudy, when Rudy made it clear, in almost every past election and at every level, that he would not support Conservatives if they won the GOP nod.

Heck, the man barely supported Dole, and outright said he would never support Buchanan. He wouldn't even support Pataki!

So why, again, shouldn't Rudy be extended the same courtesy which he often extended other Republcians?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

When have we not been at war? When is that mythical time when nobody in the world was actively seeking our demise? When was the mythical period of cease-fire with Islamic radicals?

I refuse to surrender the party to Liberals for "my own good."

I heard this same "world is too dangerous for your issues" crap during the days of the Soviets. It was bullcrap then, it's bullcrap now. We can have domestic issues and still fight for the country. I won't give up either.

The world is, was, and always will be dangerous. We will ALWAYS be under attack in some fashion from somebody. And I will never let the Liberals in the GOP use that fact to exterminate Social and Gun issues - ever.

And Rudy does not get a pass because we're at war. I will extend to him the same courtesy he extended many GOP candidates when we were at war with the Soviets and/or Islamic Radicals. War didn't make him forget his issues and support GOP candidates, did it? Not even after the WTC was bombed.

"When have we not been at war? When is that mythical time when nobody in the world was actively seeking our demise? When was the mythical period of cease-fire with Islamic radicals?"

VS

It was after all patriotic. The schedules had to be met. After all, there was a war on!. But wasn't there always

Methinks your interest in this matter is not as it is presented. Matter of fact I would be willing to bet its diametrically opposed to the manner of its presentation.

Good stuff though. The 70's were a great time for dystopian fiction of never ending war. Can't for the life of me think what might have inspired it.
______________________________
"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

But no dice.

Taken to the other extreme, one could ask how we expect to defend our values internationally when we cannot even defend them domestically.

Cleaning up your own house first, and so forth.

Me? I'll stick to fighting both battles, and not supporting any GOP candidate I consider to be an enemy on either front. Both Rudy and Ronpaul are deal-breakers for me.

To steal and remake a quote: I'd rather have Islamic Radicals in front of our military warriors than Rudy Giulaini behind our domestic warriors. And for that matter, I'd rather just fight alone than have Ronpaul in my platoon.

I recall the soviet era exceptionally well. I don't remember any calls to sacrifice conservative values to win the war. What we currently call conservative values were non starters. Those were the days of the Def Cons and Small government pro business cons.

Back then the people that would become SoCons were still democrats.

But onto obfuscation and other interesting quotes.

Rudy backers told folks like myself who were very honest about not being willing to vote for Giulaini under ANY circumstance to shut-up and find another candidate and beat Rudy if we don't like him. Now many of them follow-through with Huckabee and suddenly FisCons are up-in-arms.

Interesting statement for a man who as I write this has been here less than two days. It gets a little more interesting when you consider that its mostly quite the reverse with Anti Rudy factions threatening all kinds of third party splits.*

Now would you care to stop the obfuscation and actually say how Rudy is such a horrible blight on the GOP and will prevent us from fighting the good fight.

I mean backing up your statements with reasoned arguments would be so novel.
______________________________
"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

---"Now would you care to stop the obfuscation and actually say how Rudy is such a horrible blight on the GOP and will prevent us from fighting the good fight."---

Many have already tried - but let's be honest, it wouldn't matter how long the list was. He's not a Democrat, and that's what matters - we have to root for the home team.

Rudy could revert to non-candidate Rudy and promise to do everything in his power to protect a woman's right to choose, register and require testing for all handguns, and swear to only appoint SCOTUS Justices who'd uphold Roe - it wouldn't make you blink.

I could cite a million reasons why Rudy would is a horrible blight on the GOP - not a one of them would budge you. You see Social Conservatives as the blight - party crashers who might as well be Democrats. I see SoCons as a great part of the reason the GOP became relevant.

And you, unlike me, are willing to simply pretend that pre-Presidential candidate Rudy never really existed.

Thats my argument for.

Go figure.
______________________________
"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

I had to Google it to make sure you weren't actually referring to Harrison's Bill the Galactic Hero, and it turns out you're right, I'm wrong. Same thoughts and same publication year, though.

-
NARF

I wouldn't say Pataki or Buchanan qualify as Republicans. One is a RINO, the other doesn't even qualify for that much. Buchanan quit to run as the rent-a-party candidate in 2000, remember? Since then he has claimed to be a Republican again, but I'm not really interested in taking him back, myself.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman