Redstate

You're dead on. It's far from over. In fact the GOP race might even just be starting.

If Huckabee turns out to be the GOP candidate. I'll gladly vote for him. Same with any of the GOP candidates. I'd never consider staying home. I've said so many times.

I *know* Hillary's socialist/radical/agenda which is opposite of this SoCon's values. I want the strongest candidate to see that she doesn't have the eight years of POWER to enact it.

Why not unite around that?
============

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

so committed to the ONE big issue, I have wondered why his candidacy didn't take off. He pretty much is only a conservative on those issues and a sort of nanny state moderate on everything else.

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

The guy makes GWB look like me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

If any of his opponents want to sink Huckabee they simply need to tie him to the term "compassionate conservative." We all know what that means. It means expanding the nanny state but making sure we let religious groups in on the trough of federal money being strewn about. Compassionate is just a code word for liberal.

Two problems I have with Huckabee. First, I don't want another Bush when it comes to domestic policy - mainly in the spending/regulatory arena. Bush has done nothing to even halt the natural growth. He's actually encouraged new regulations and new spending. Huckabee would be no different, and he's potentially weak on taxes. Second, I simply don't believe he is credible on the national security/foreign policy issues that face us.

I was leaning Huckabee until I found out he makes George Bush look like Tom Tancredo on border security.

Why does it always have to be something????

and I like Huck as a person.

Still for Fred

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

In spite of numerous posts and comments to the contrary, others still don't understand that SoCons are not one issue voters.

Most of us are firmly in the fiscal and security camps and most of the candidates available could be counted on to at least hold the line on Social issues while still moving forward on Fiscal and security issues.

We do understand compromise, but not abdication.

May of us have said "anybody but Rudy" because not only do you absolutely not get Pro-family support with Rudy, you get questionable to weak support on pretty much everything else.

About the only thing folks can really count on from Rudy is pro-security; something which sounds an awful lot like a "one issue" voting scenario from those promoting Rudy and dissing the SoCons.

But I think you are off base with Huckabee.

A Rudy/Hillary battle will be a battle of offsetting egos. The winner of that election will be based on which party is in favor at the time. They both have huge negatives.

A Fred/Hillary battle is an unknown because we still don't know enough about Mr. Thompson. However I still haven't seen anything from the man to warrant the hype he is receiving from his devoted fans. Personally he strikes me as the new Bob Dole but without the experience.

A Mitt/Hillary battle would be tight but I question whether the SoCons will really come out to vote for a waffling Mormon.(No offense to SoCons is meant with that remark).

IMO, a Huckabee/Hillary battle is easily the most advantageous election for the Republicans. Huckabee as almost zero negatives and has considerable cross-party appeal. Hillary has zero cross-party appeal and will need to tend to her house to have any chance.

FTR, I really don't like Hillary. Other than Rudy I think I would likely vote for the GOP candidate over her. So I really pray that she stumbles. I also think her support is a house of cards.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I guess that just goes to show how far off my opinion can be.

Tell me about the house of cards you speak of.

In one of his re-elections. That is more than double what Michael Steele got in Maryland last year.

So he's got that going for him, which is nice. (Sorry, still on my Bill Murray/Caddyshack Dalai Lama kick from yesterday).

6% in a national election. Remember, HRC is married to the first black president.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Blacks are 12 percent of the population and make up about about 10 percent of the national vote. Bush got 11 percent in 2004. Assuming Huckabee got 48 percent nationally, that would be an increase of 3.7 percent overall (48 percent of 10 percent minus 11 percent of 10 percent = 3.7 percent).

Of course there is no way Huckabee would get 48 percent nationally. If he got 20 percent that would be huge. But that is still a 1 percent swing nationwide. It is not huge, but its progress.

don't be getting drug tested any time soon. And make sure you've got a designated driver.

No Republican will get double digits of the black vote in '08.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"If he got 20 percent that would be huge" does not translate into, "He will get 20 percent."

Bush got 9 percent in 2000 and 11 percent in 2004 (16 percent in Ohio). To declare outright that the as-yet-unknown Republican nominee will not get 10 percent of the vote in 2008 demonstrates a massive lack of faith in our likely nominee or our message or both. That mindset is a surefire way to permanent minority status. Here's a recent quote from Newt Gingrich that should sober you up:

"You can't write off African-Americans, you can't write off Hispanic-Americans and write off the Northeast and write off suburban women and write off people under 45 and then think you are going to be a majority," he said. "We want to solve problems for all Americans."

I'm just being realistic about the D. We've got the wife of the first black president - who will likely campaign like crazy for her, unlike Algore, or maybe that Obama guy. Those two will realistically suck up the black vote like there's no tomorrow.

I'm not so sanguine about the Hispanic vote or women. And I think at least one of our candidates could put the northeast and maybe even CA in play. While I doubt we'll be winning CA or NY any time soon, making the D's spend money there is a plus. And I think there is an outside shot at winning NJ, NH, and PA with the right candidate.

No Democrat who is not receiving the daily kool-aid dosage really WANTS to support Hillary. They all see her as the heir apparent to the throne, fear that any other candidate will lose to the Republican candidate (something that is just unthinkable to the Dems), and secretly hope that she won't REALLY be as bad for the country as they all know she really, really will be!

=========
About the Author

Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed. Vegas would not vote for Hillary for dog catcher -- come to think of it, Vegas hates dog catchers.

In my personal experience, the one thing that most puts independents off of the current Republicans is their perceived kowtowing to the religious right. (I am not saying its true, only perceived). Huckabee is the most religious candidate. I don't see him getting any cross over votes.

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

Huckabee has no cross over appeal. His "likability" plays well in the deep South, which is already solidly Red, but being a tee-totalling ordained minister with that hokey Southern charm will be a liability in many battleground states like Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire and Florida. It worked for Bill Clinton because he had the blue states locked up and used his southern "likability" to woo some southern Republican voters in places like Arkansas and Georgia.

http://abcradionetworks.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=7&y=2007

http://race42008.com/2007/09/18/how-can-i-not-endorse-the-foghorn-to-my-...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Huckabee can win IA for all I care. I simply don't think that a win there will carry him to the nomination. NH will likely still go for Romney, and I don't see even an IA victory disabusing people in the follow-up states that Huckabee is up to the task of taking on Hillary!

Actually, Huckabee winning in IA would be a great boon to the Thompson and Giuliani campaigns - neither seems to be concerning themselves much with victory in IA and NH, and are focusing elsewhere - MI, SC, FL. Huckabee winning IA would take the wind out of Romney's sails, and I suspect Rudy and Fred would be the big beneficiaries of any changed votes as the picture becomes even more muddled.

IA will not be able to inject enough life into the Huckabee campaign to compete in the Feb. 5th states - he simply won't have the money, and what he does have will be too little too late.

Nice try though!

But for all the other Huckabots out there;

Huckabee's site is getting 3 times the unique visitors than Rudy's now. It's pretty even with Thompson and has 50% more than Romney.

Mitt has spent about 52 million bucks all together so far.
Huckabee has raised only a couple million or so TOTAL.

Mitt would be in the hole right now if he had not loaned himself 17 million. 17 freakin' MILLION!

As far as the Demoyne Register goes, Huck is leading the Iowa pack of them all with fully committed voters. The only reason Mike hasn't blown these other guys out is because of money. That's it.

This is killing the R.P. supporters who were trashing me a couple weeks back about how their man had raked in 5 times what Mike had raised in the last quarter.

YEEEHAWWW! GO HUCKABEE GO!!!!!!!

Jim Tomasik

At this point, our money problem is nothing to brag about. Pulling himself up by his bootstraps was impressive when he was near the bottom, yes. But now we're getting close to that wall that can only be hurdled with a pole made of cash. (Poor metaphor, but you get the idea.)

I say $4 million, and we can beat Romney in Iowa. But we need that money. Let's get to it.

www.mikehuckabee.com

It's nothing to brag about but it's usre worth noting. He has got to get his money raised. I am impressed with how well he is handling what he has raised so far.

Jim Tomasik

I'd be interested in seeing that data. The only stats I could find have Huck in 3rd, but are not close to the numbers you're talking about:
1. Fred '08 www.fred08.com 36.88%
2. [that guy] 2008 www.HWSNBN2008.com 26.50%
3. Mike Huckabee www.mikehuckabee.com 10.91%
4. Mitt Romney www.mittromney.com 8.15%
5. John McCain 2008 www.johnmccain.com 6.68%
6. Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee www.joinrudy2008.com 6.6%

Dated October 13th...

http://www.hitwise.com/political-data-center/republican-candidates.php

Rank Website Market Share
1. www.ronpaul2008.com 40.94%
2. www.mikehuckabee.com 14.79%
3. www.fred08.com 13.21%
4. www.mittromney.com 9.19%
5. www.joinrudy2008.com 9.18%
6. www.gohunter08.com 6.09%
7. www.johnmccain.com 3.56%
8. www.brownback.com 3.03%

Jim Tomasik

Your info is from HitWise as well, it's just a month old. Please note the difference in the numbers a month can make.

Jim Tomasik

I'm completely dismayed by the RP numbers?!?!

these kinds of numbers are every bit as insignificant as straw poll results. They are absolutely, utterly, completely meaningless.

We're getting to the point where the numbers that really matter are $$$$$$. No $$, no ability to advertise in NH, NV, MI, SC and super Tuesday. To some extent you can compete in IA with no money if you have a dedicated field organization (see RP). NH is relatively cheap as is NV. MI is much more expensive and then you get to the need for real money on super Tuesday. If you don't have the $$ in the bank by IA, you won't be raising it based on some magical win there, just not enough time and too many other races to concentrate on.

You can look at this HitWise silliness as despiration trying to find a candidate. And succeeding.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

People don't have to visit Rudy Giuliani's website to know who the heck he is. Conversely, if everyone is hitting Ron Paul's site, then that shows nobody knows who he is!

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

He's not my guy, but I appreciate his assets.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Would you still be fine with Giuliani if his running mate was Huckabee? Because if Huckabee inches up seven more points--and he's gone up about 12 in a month--he might get a surprise victory in Iowa, which would make him the natural VP choice for Giuliani if Rudy goes on to win from there.

www.mikehuckabee.com

If I was faced with a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket vs a Clinton/anyone ticket, I'd definitely pull the lever for Giuliani, but it would not be a happy case, and I'd be extremely nervous about Giuliani's health and well being the entire time he's in office. I hope it never, ever, comes to that...

If Huck wins SC, he would be in a very good position.

The compressed schedule bites both ways. There isn't as much time to talk up a big win, but there also isn't as much time for the excitement from a big win to cool down.

And what about a big loss? It looks like Giuliani or Thompson is going to be stuck in 4th place...without as much time to explain it away and recover. Or if McCain had a big showing, he might steal 4th place, leaving 5th place for one of the "big three."

They basically aren't competing in IA - I think a good move. Hopefully, this will be the last we have to suffer through the sight of a very few people driving through a blizzard to have coffee and donuts with their friends and cast a "vote". Caucuses are a bad joke, just barely one step above RonPaul™ winning a straw poll.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6415.html

If Rudy gets below 3rd in Iowa, his campaign will be significantly hurt. His campaign knows this.

I remember that Giuliani tried a stealth campaign for the Iowa straw poll. It looks like he's still trying to finesse between making a decent showing and looking like he isn't trying. He's doing a better job of that this time around.

Still, while a 4th or 5th place showing would hurt Giuliani, he would survive it. For Thompson, on the other hand, 4th or 5th would be devastating.

The compressed schedule only makes Iowa less important, not more important.

there also isn't as much time for the excitement from a big win to cool down.

It's not like anybody was forgetting how Iowa and NH voted when there was a gap.

There isn't as much time to talk up a big win

It's not about talking up a big win. The voters in the big states aren't going to care much about who a few thousand Iowans decided to vote for. The candidates are going to need a lot of money to compete in those big states... money they won't have the time to raise and spend before the contests. Maybe an Iowa win would've helped them raise a good chunk of funds in years passed (3rd place still isn't going to cut it), but not any more.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Your argument that the early states isn't about excitement or interest in a candidate but has a big impact on fundraising isn't coherent. Fundraising increases because of excitement and interest surrounding a candidate increases.

Even assuming that you were right, and the big role of the early states is money and nothing else, with a compressed schedule no candidate will have time to raise more money for the big states. If that's true, a compressed schedule would be an advantage for Romney, who won't run out of money, and a setback for the rest.

Fundraising is more about who has a chance to win than who everyone is excited about. You don't have to be excited about anything to write $4600 checks or bundle a million dollars worth of contributions to a candidate. You just have to think they are likely to win. It takes time to raise and spend that money. With the current schedule, any underdog will already be losing contests in big states before they could capitalize any any bump out of Iowa.

Even assuming that you were right, and the big role of the early states is money and nothing else, with a compressed schedule no candidate will have time to raise more money for the big states.

The front runners don't have to depend on showing some sign of life in Iowa to raise funds. People are already giving them money, and this will accelerate as we get closer to the start of the primaries and as the field gets narrowed down.

If that's true, a compressed schedule would be an advantage for Romney, who won't run out of money, and a setback for the rest.

A compressed primary schedule is a boon for all the front runners and a major problem for the underdogs.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Yeah, for the smaller individual donors sending $25 or $50 donations, excitement about a candidate is a drive, but those big-rollers kick in the dough based on who they think best represents their long term interests but more importantly who they think is going to be the guy making the decisions that affect them for four years. That's why so many big donors give money to multiple campaigns, hedging their bets!

But I'd just remind you that a whole lot of the big conservative donors have been MIA so far, and seem to be waiting to see who to spend their money on. I think many of them might sit on a lot of their cash until the first couple of primaries, and step in to help play "king-makers" in fact. I do not think anyone should underestimate the degree to which this has some influence on the current thinking among some donors -- along of course with additional factors like not being totally enamored of any of the top candidates.

The time frame between primaries is definitely short, as you note, but I think we'll seem some infusion of cash just before the primaries start and then a whole lot pumped in quickly after the first few states vote. It will be tricky in a lot of ways to capitalize even on a surge of funding, since getting last-minute airtime might be difficult so soon before the next batch of primaries, but I contend that if Huckabee can keep moving up in the polls, he'll get enough cash infusion to carry him to some good showings -- I predict a win in Iowa -- early on, which will generate enough cash that he can hit the next couple of primaries with a lot more to spend to advertise last-minute when it counts the most and generate GOTV for him. If he can create a surge from Iowa and New Hampshire that propels him to a key victory in the next couple of primaries, I think he has a good chance of surprising you.

Now you say that fundraising goes better for early-state winners because donors recognize early-state winners as having a better chance of winning, and they want to put their money in the right place. Fine.

You also said that the single relevant effect of a compressed schedule is less time for fundraising in response to the wins. Great.

This leaves the uncomfortable fact that, according to your theory, everyone believes that early-state winners have a better chance, by virtue of the early-state win.

Now, you may have some amazing insight that these millions of dollars don't, but the straightforward explanation is that early-state wins have a significance apart from fundraising.

What I said was that there are ways that early state wins can indeed help with that person's fundraising. I noted that overall, there is less time to engage in fundraising, but that early wins can help the winner generate more interest in donating to their campaign. That's not contradictory at all.

And don't misunderstand what I said -- by saying donors will see that an early-state winner has more chance than might've been thought to win the nominataion, that doesn't mean they literally "have more of a chance" out of ALL the candidates. I'm saying that right now, everyone calls Huckabee a longshot, but if he wins a few of the early primaries, it becomes obvious he might be able to win after all and so donors are more willing to give him money to stay in the race.

It is entirely possible that it can be true that a shorter primaray schedule leaves less time to raise money, but that it is equally true that having less time to raise money has nothing to do with whether winning primaries gets your campaign more donations in that sorter time-frame. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I don't know why you'd think they are.

if not more so. Anyone who thinks Fred's style would not be effective against Hillary is underestimating Hillary's negatives

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Especially versus that ultra liberal senator Blanche Lincoln. At the same time, I have nightmares about all of the pork that Mike Huckabee will be packing in his bills. He'd probably be as bad as Ted Stevens.

I guess we have to take incremental steps, however.

Don't underestimate Rudy. His speeches are robust and optimistic, and he is quite good. I remember his speech at the last republican convention as being one of the best.

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

pre-campaigning and he really is pretty amazing in person. You do come out thinking that this is someone who you could follow.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Mike Huckabee is a social conservative as much as Nancy Pelosi is a fiscal conservative. Both may have run as such, but that doesn't make it so.

There's more to honest-to-goodness conservatism than wanting to preserve the family. For a politican, certain beliefs on the fundamental role of government as it relates to society come into play, and Huckabee shows none of that, absolutely no small government tendencies.

When somebody hurts, government's gotta move. President Bush said that, and I bet Governor Huckabee nodded enthusiastically.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Social conservatives who are also limited government fiscal conservatives are more than welcome.

Narrowminded people who think that if someone is a social conservative that they don't need to look at the rest of the candidate's record...those people I will NOT welcome.

Cheesh! Really, Rollin, people come here to discuss politics. There are many points of view, can't you understand that without getting all pouty? People will both agree and disagree.

Okay, SoCons have worked hard (you and I). Don't you think others have? Just give your reasons why you support a candidate.

Have you ever belonged to any other organizations? You state your position and PREPARE FOR INCOMING!

In this arena, you're likely to get your toes stepped on occasionaly. But so what? The sad puppy stuff and I'll take my ball and go home attitude gets mighty old. Even for fellow social conservatives.
=============

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

... spare me the "sad puppy", "pouty" rhetoric. You're right, people come here to discuss politics, not to watch a constant bunch of inaccurate portrayals of social conservatives full of insulting claims that we'll be to blame if Hillary wins, that we use "litmus-test, litmus-test, litmus-test", "ONE issue", etc over and over. That's what I'm complaining about -- it's no more "sad puppy" or "pouty" than you guys whining about social conservatives being so closed-minded as to insist the candidate not endorse killing unborn babies.

And might I direct your attention to, for example, the comment above that -- yep -- says some of us in fact are NOT welcome in the party? That is exactly what I'm talking about. That's not "discussing politics", that's the sort of "discussion" typical of a handful of ungrateful people who consistently talk about social conservatives as if we are an uneducated mob who embarrass the family at every reunion. As a member of this party, I have every right to point out when too many of you speak insultingly about us and assert that we are duty-bound to endorse and vote for whomever the more "enlightened" conservatives put forward as the candidate.

So you want to talk like that about us -- and yes, you ARE talking that way about us, hence your condescending tone -- then definitely PREPARE FOR INCOMING. Don't cry to me about it if I and others start calling you out for exhibiting the same sort of elitist "enlightened" mentality normally typical of the left. Again, this tends to be a problem from people who are solely fiscal conservatives and who hob-nob in crowds that look down their noses at Southern and mid-Western evangelicals in the party, and who I think now see an opportunity to "knock us down a few notches" by abandoning the social conservative principles that we represent. But if I or anyone like me complains about it, we're "pouty"?

And please, don't question my involvement in other organizations. I've been around for 4 decades, and have spent most of my life actively living my beliefs and my faith -- not just going to church and attending pro-life rallies. I've worked in Senate offices and on political campaigns for decades, and work now on Capitol Hill lobbying and producing campaign ads. So yeah, my toes have gotten bruised at times, and I've bruised quite a few myself. And I've learned that in a coalition, if you let one group get away with starting to play the "blame game" ("If Hillary wins, it's your fault!" "We lost in 2006 because of you!"), or to treat others in the coalition as second-class members, it escalates and makes the group less effective.

I'm not asking for apologies or a group hug -- I'm saying this crap is uncalled for, it's divisive, and it's intellectually dishonest and lazy. And it's the best, quickest way to loose the election and break up the coalition. It needs to stop. That's not "pouting" -- it's called maturity.

"If evangelical-bashing is suddenly coming into vogue in our party"

That strikes me as a false premise...

First of all, in relative terms, GWB is a domestic liberal. Maybe not compared to Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi, but he's one heck of a lot more liberal than the base. You can't look back on NCLB, MedPartD, immigration and domestic spending in general and not realize that the man is no conservative.

Nobody's bashing SoCons. You guys are just setting yourselves up for a debate that you don't like. You don't like Rudy, you're not real fond of Fred (is he really a Christian?), Romney's - well, Romney, and you don't have a real candidate who has a chance of winning the primary. So it seems your collective panties are in a wad.

Get over it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

more illegitimate, lazy thinking. "Collective panties in a wad?" "Don't have a candidate who has a chance of winning the primary?" Ah, I see, my mistake -- definitely no bashing or insults being slung around here.

And again with the Bush-is-a-liberal shtick? Sigh...

Let me ask you something -- why is it if anybody so much as says Giuliani has something in his teeth, you all jump up screaming, and can't go a day without finding some excuse to suggest that if Hillary wins, it's all the fault of social conservatives for not endorsing Lieberman in an elephant mask, and that's not whining or wearing your hearts on your sleeves?

Excuse me if my number-one priority in the presidential election isn't privatization of garbage collection, but for 28 years social conservative principles and family values seem to have fit pretty well in our party, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- those principles have been a big part of the backbone of a winning strategy that's helped us stay the dominant political force.

Or, what, Karl Rove is stupid? Is that it, Rove was a political hack for using social issues in the campaigns, and Bush is a liberal, and social conservative principles have no place in this election because the way to beat Hillary is to out-liberal her on key social issues like gay marriage because we all know the public is demanding legalized homosexual marriage?

Give me a break. And please also spare me the suggestion that because social issues are important to me, that must mean that nothing else matters. What, you said you love ice-cream? Wow, so you mean you hate all other food? Yeah, that's about what you're doing.

First of all, with respect to Hillary winning because you stay home, it's not Rudy's folks (and I'm not of them) who are flogging that theme, it's YOU.

We've been treated to probably a dozen diaries and thousands of comments that are generally themed if you nominate Rudy, we're not playing, we'll start a third party or just stay home, so there. The discussion on your side seems to be getting more and more hysterical by the day.

In point of fact, GWB is significantly more liberal on any number of fronts than the base. I even gave you some quick examples. You respond with a sigh. Good work.

I'm fine if your #1 priority is social issues. That's exactly what elections are about. It's about balancing the priorities of the whole electorate, in this case the electorate will be those who show up in the Republican primaries. Get a candidate who reflects your values and get people to show up and vote for him. Then we'll deal with the general election.

I find it somewhat humorous that your big whine is that everybody doesn't fall into line because others have "social issues" farther down on their priority scale than you. Nobody, well very few, is saying that they don't matter. Some of us view the playing field a tad differently than you do.

And on that last note, I find it amazing that you would refuse to support a general election candidate who would probably give you half a loaf and in doing so, throw the election to someone who will insure you don't get crumbs for the next generation. Oh well.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Yeah, yeah, I get it: Bush is a liberal, evangelicals are hysterical and whine, and we'll throw the election to socialism blah blah blah. Nice and rational analysis. It can't possibly be intellectually lazy blame-gaming, since you used the word "panties" in your subject line -- ALWAYS proof-positive that a point is thoughtful, right?

You aren't really trying to debate and attack political positions, you just ignore that and go right for the person or group of conservatives they represent. Thanks to all who worked so hard to prove so clearly how right my initial post was.

... actually could a moderator just remove my above comment, or can someone tell me how the heck I go in and edit my comments once they're posted? I see no point in responding to that sort of flaming etc from others around here. I came to this site to have political discussions and debates with fellow conservatives to find ways to strengthen and enlarge our party and solidify our dominance in U.S. politics for the long-term, not to just get into personal back-and-forth trading of insults with people who should be my allies. I surely didn't anticipate this being the typical sorts of responses and exchanges I'd see so much on these threads, and I personally am now going to try and just ignore it and not feed the flamers and trollers anymore.

I will say to cut this out now. Looks like you're already there, and becker's a reasonable fellow, so I expect this to end now.

We have a nasty primary season ahead. Let's not go cutting before it's needed.

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

you just don't like it. To generally recap,

1. The guy is Compassionate Conservative who typically makes GWB look like the Grinch.
2. His record on taxes is right there with Hillary's.
3. Based on his performance as Governor of AR and his recent comments, he seems to think that government is able to solve problems should be "helping" people.
4. His stance on immigration seems to be a tad to the left of McCain and GWB.
5. He's never had to deal with a toxic political environment like DC. Some of us think he'll get eaten alive by the Ds and the media.
6. I'm not sure his tenure as Governor of AR qualifies him for anything. See the previous Governor.
7. Who knows how he'll come down on the judiciary. He's been silent on the subject.
8. See 7 for foreign policy.
9. Ethanol... Bzzzzzzzzzzt.
10. He's a 10 on Life issues. But so what? Exactly what would he be able to do that any of the other candidates wouldn't do?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

But, but, but he is in a band, and he lost a lot of weight. :)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Socially conservative socialists don't tend to excite me. And I am certainly a part of the base.

Given his immigration stances of the past and his big government approach, I doubt he'll excite the whole base, certainly not as much as others.

Disclaimer: Currently leaning between Fred and Mitt.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

n/t

who were supporting Brownback? And the money? Heh. He'll never even catch up to RonPaul™.

And it as after 10PM on the right coast - so I don't think we can discount the affect the "demon rum" might be having on some people at this hour.

Why put this thought here? Oh, gee - no reason.

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

I don't know about Purgatory, but you are going into Limbo.

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

I read an article today stating the Huck would support a federal ban on smoking in "public" places. Is that accurate? If so, I would have a very difficult time supporting him. When the federal government imposes it's will on small business owners (bars and restaurant's) that to me does not represent the traditional conservative values of protection of private property. Does anyone know if that is actually his stance?

Yup. Here's the news article.

Huckabee doesn't have any small government instincts. He believes government can solve any problem. He's a perfect, populist social conservative. But he will lose very very badly because he doesn't have any redeeming qualities if you aren't motivated by social issues.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Both have on occasion expressed populist causes of sympathy for [insert victim here] during the course of their careers. The main difference is that Brownback expressed compassion in a symbolic kind of way, and Huckabee expressed his compassion in a new entitlement kind of way. This is a major distinction to me. Some objected to Brownback's overly apologetic stances with respect to native Americans etc, but at least his solutions were simply a matter of symbolism instead of tax payer funding.

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.

he was a minority w/i a minority

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

gamecock,

I agree with you that Brownback was a minority within a minority with respect to his support for symbolic apologies to native Americans, etc. I do not see your point of a distinction in looking for the government entitlement solution introducing a bill as a Senator vs proposing it as a governor.

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.

if he had the numbers in the Senate he would have gone further than symbolism, but I could well be wrong!

I smell the turkey 36 miles away.

Talk to you post 5000 calories from now!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I wonder why that agenda is more known. He doesn't come across that way in the debates and none of the other candidates have taken him to task on it.

to point out the truth by saying, "Mike, you are a liar. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the butt."
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Molon Labe!

FNS, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER. DON'T HAVE TO.

GOOGLE FOR HOURS IF YOU MUST

IF YOU CARE

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Molon Labe!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

try to have a nice Thanksgiving :) I did find the video where Huck said that. That is nanny state crap, he is looking worse to me.

Molon Labe!

but, one of my main arguments on this issue is that if 2nd hand smoke was really a danger, then, like in coal mines and textile plants, the compassionate would insist on face masks!!!

http://www.hinzsightreport.com/devinelaw/mike-051707.html

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Video

HTML Help for Red Staters

How many offices and restaurants do ban smoking? I would say very many. People should make their own choices where they work and play. It is also a Constitution issue.

Molon Labe!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_14_39/ai_n13593257

Award-winning restaurants can earn door decals based on their levels of adherence to the program. The levels are as follows: offering smoke-free dining, which allows no smoking on premises; offering a designated nonsmoking dining with separate ventilation; or simply offering a designated nonsmoking area. Participating restaurants also may use the "Healthy Arkansas" logo in advertising.

"The governor wants to encourage rather than enforce," said Jim Harris, spokesman for Huckabee. "He doesn't want government to become the smoke police or the fat police."

HTML Help for Red Staters

MH: I personally would on the workplace issue. If there are two or more people, and as long as anyone under the age of 21 worked in that place, there ought to be some protections for them.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/015d61f5-b664-42ae-a5fb-b42b86ae30...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I did not support a ban just in restaurants and bars because frankly, I think that the problem with that is that you’re punishing the customers.

he was saying he want's a ban in ALL "workplaces" including restaurants.

Molon Labe!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I neglected reading the word "just"