Huckabee and Giuliani -- the Small Tent Candidates
By No King but God Posted in Archived — Comments (67) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Too many people are supporting Huckabee and too many people are supporting Giuliani as a way of flipping the bird to other elements in the Republican coalition that they don't like. Giuliani's crowd is sick of those "fundy bigots from the South." The Huckabee choir can't stand those "Godless greedy fatcat businessmen."
Both groups are representing two loathsome Democrat ideas. The first is the politically correct witchhunt idea where everyone who doesn't say exactly the correct thing according to you has to be attacked and eliminated. The second is the identity politics idea, where the point of voting isn't to actually benefit you or your country but to make yourself feel good by affirming your identity.
Full disclosure: I'm a religious and social conservative so if I had to choose between Huckabee and Giuliani I'd vote for Huckabee. If some part of the GOP gets rejected and denigrated I'd rather it not be my part. But I'd much rather vote for McCain, Romney, or Thompson, who can represent the whole party.
I've always been lukewarm on Romney, so Romney and Thompson were always 1a and 1b for me. But I'm warming up to McCain despite his global warming nonsense. It helps that he's flipflopping on immigration and it really helps that he's probaly the strongest general election candidate we have.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
McCain has improved a lot in my eyes, from the Huckabee factor (anyone as horrible as Huckabee makes McCain and everyone else look that much better) and the fact that he has kept out of trouble and seriously tried to mend some fences during the past 6 months or so. He's still not my first or second choice, but he has improved considerably.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Huckabee who changed my perspective. It's that Huckabee is the worst case scenario. When I place Rudy and Huck in 4th and 5th place because of ethics concerns, that leaves McCain in 3rd.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
My fear of John McCain is that were he to win the election there is no telling how far left he would move.
He has done it before and at one point or another he has flipped the bird to the entire Republican coalition.
While he has flipped recently to mend some conservative fences that gives me little comfort because anybody who is willingly to put expediency of above principle with a flip can also be counted on to flop the other direction when expediency requires it.
I don't believe a word he says about his change of heart on immigration and in any case it is a very minor change of heart. He is still pushing shamnesty.
I ha hoped that Thompson would take the Republican field by vigorously capturing the majority of the conservative movemnet that Rudy and Huck do not represent. Unfortunately, I'm still waiting.
how the Huckster has changed the perspective of so many. Really has made McCain, but particularly Thompson, more acceptable for this Romney supporter. I'd take either of those, and maybe even Giuliani, over the Huckster. The more I learn about Huck the scarier he gets. The more I watch him in debates and in interviews the sicker I get.
He is like a glazed donut. You eat one, you like, and you want more. You eat three, four or more, and suddenly you are sick to your stomach.
Bingo, my friend, you said it exactly right.
I think you're exactly right. But as we know, politics makes strange bedfellows so I think that Huckabee and Giuliani are going to team up in order to edge out Romney and Thompson.
I'd vote for McCain in the general, but to me he's not a whole lot better than Giuliani.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
McCain isn't much better than Giuliani? In a way I think you're right. McCain's positions on a lot of things aren't all that great. But the difference is that McCain's bad positions are sprinkled all over the map. He's not the 'to hell with the jesus freaks' candidate like Giuliani is.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I'm with ya. McCain's a bit better on social issues. But his other poor policies don't make him any more likable.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
would be my preferred order. It appears to me that this primary season is shaping into a battle for who will control the GOP - social conservatives or fiscal conservatives. Both sides desire power - so rather than compromise on a candidate (Thompson or Romney, then as a last resort, McCain) that would offer something to both sides, it looks like both sides have chosen the "nuclear option" and are playing Russian roulette with the Republican party. Should one of these factions succeed in getting Giuliani or Huckabee nominated, the party is fractured, and Hillabama wins easily.
So what to do? Well, that would require Giuliani and Huckabee partisans to act like adults and work with each other to compromise. Instead of compromise, the Rudybots try to claim that Rudy will be, essentially, the same as Huckabee on abortion, a leap of faith that many are not willing to make. Instead of recognizing that Huckabee is really not opposed to taxing just about anything in the "right circumstances", Huckabots try to claim that Huckabee really IS fiscally conservative, a moon rocket leap of faith. Rudy can no more convince pro lifers he will govern pro life even though he is pro choice any more than Mike can convince fiscal cons he won't balloon the federal budget even though he massively increased spending in Arkansas. The logical thing for the party as a whole to do to these candidates is deep six them both. Based on everything I have read here over the last few months, that is not going to happen. Too many seem to be too wedded to their pet position/policy. Rather than find the uniter, they will choose the death of the GOP over compromise. I am forced to echo Robert Hahn in another thread, "we are so headed for a train wreck"...
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
But also pretty darn spot-on.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Why you would prefer a social conservative - for the presidency - does not make much sense. Presidents deal with about three social issues during the course of their term. The number of fiscal issues they confront (i.e. tax policy) is countless. Prefering a social conservative/fiscal liberal over a fiscal conservative is really senseless
Because I'm a social conversative. I agree with Ramesh Ponnuru's and Hadley Arkes' analysis that a Giuliani nomination would marginalize social conservatives. So if it comes down to it, I'm voting against Giuliani.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I've been preaching the need for a compromise candidate for quite some time on the blogs. Have you been stealing my sermon notes? ;-)
I think that the one positive coming out of the Huckabee threat is that FisCons are finally getting just a small taste of what SoCon and Gun Conservatives have been feeling about Rudy. Take that angst, multiply it by a million, and take that result to the millionth power - now you begin to understand why SoCons and GunCons are losing sleep. Now picture Hucakee's sole assurance to you (FisCons) being a promise to appoint "strict Supply-Siders" to his Economic Advisory Board, and a bunch of already-Huck-converts telling you why that's more than enough. And as he talks about the right to keep your own money, he caveats it by saying how tax increases saved Arkansas (vis-a-vis Guns/Rudy).
Perhaps it truly is time for some allegiance-changing this primary season? I think a compromise with Fred, Mitt, or even Arizona Johnny would prove to be - ultimately - a wise move that quelled a GOP Civil War.
NARAL Rudy and Tax Hike Mike are going to prove to be mistakes of epic proportions, with the GOP candidate fighting a General Election on both the right and the left, while the Dems tell everyone whatever they want to hear and (as always) outbid Republicans on promises of Largesse to the masses. Sadly, there are some truly mentally retarded folks out there who stupidly believe that putting the two of them together on the ticket is the solution - folks like this should be kept away from sharp objects and power tools.
I know it's wishful thinking, but I would love to see both wings coming together on a candidate at this point. There's always hope.....
(remember the GWOT?), reigning in the federal government and sticking it to DEMOCRATS, not social conservatives (who are driving the Huck candidacy and can speak for themselves).
Speaking of small tents, to date Fred has lost half a tent. The people are telling us something. And in a democracy, the people rule.
Giuliani isn't specifically casting himself as the anti-social conservative candidate. But lots and lots and lots of his supporters are supporting him for that reason. Not all, I grant you, but enough.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
..is the roaring applause he gets from his crowds for lines like "We can't criminalize abotion" or "we don't want to put women in jail for having abortions."
There is a deep, deep hostility there toward SoCons and GunCons - not everyone, but plenty, to be sure.
and he appoints originalist/strict constructionist judges like he said he would?
And the Supreme Court then rules that under Article X of the Constitution, that every state has a constitutional right to restrict abortion?
I think Rudy would be a good president because he is really effective and he is really against terrorists and their sponsors. I also like how Rudy took on the socialLIBERALS when they wanted to use tax dollars to subsidize so-called "art" that depicted members of Jesus's family with sewage products.
I believe gun ownership is an individual right and Rudy says he believes it is an individual right too. I am not hostile to socialcons and guncons. I do not like activist judges and I think Roe was decided incorrectly.
...I'd also love it if Hillary nominated Strict Constructionists - but that's not likely either.
Look, it's just stupid to believe that Rudy Giuliani would appoint the fifth justice to overturn Roe and let history measure him as the President who did so. We all know how important Roe has always been to Rudy, and behind that a woman's right to choose.
If you do not understand that he likely already has someone in mind - from his days in NY, the Justice Department, and connections with the Federalist Society - who will be mostly Republican, but 100% certain to be Pro-Roe (either by believing it correctly decided or stare decisis), then you have no concept of either who Rudy Giuliani is or how incredibly easy that combination is to achieve.
There is a simple truth that we SoCons understand that Fiscons are going to have to learn: we already know, with 100% certainty, that Rudy will nominate Pro-Roe Justices. It is a fact, undeniable and without any doubt. End of story.
And Rudy does not believe in gun ownership - he believes in some gun ownership if, and only if, your state and/or city approve (sorry Blue Staters - no guns for you!). And even on that minor concession he has flip-flopped, if he is even to be believed on it at all.
I appreciate that you're not hostile to SoCons and GunCons - I'll take you at your word. But Rudy is, and always has been. And as I said, Rudy means, with 100% certainty, Pro-Roe judges on the SCOTUS. I cannot live with that when there will be no hope for remedy in 2012. Even with Hillary doing it, we have a shot at getting an anti-Roe candidate in 2012.
We all know how important Roe has always been to Rudy
we already know, with 100% certainty, that Rudy will nominate Pro-Roe Justices. It is a fact, undeniable and without any doubt.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTEzMWNmZDgxNGRhNzc0NDg5YTYwMDI...
Rudy declares Roe v. Wade Anniversay Day in NY...
praises Margaret Sanger as a hero...
He went out of his way to promote abortion
-Declared Roe v. Wade Anniversary Day
-Declared Planned Parenthood Day
-Spoke often before NOW and NARAL
-Gave his OWN money to Pro-Abort groups.
-Declared himself "one of the most effective abortion rights activists in America"
-Publicly joined the cause, using his bully pulpit to oppose Federal Legislation banning PBA.
-Declared Roe v. Wade "good Constitutional law"
-Suports public funding of Abortion
-Openly says he believes Abortion to be a Constitutional Right
-Appointed the head of NARAL in NY to lead the Department on Human Rights
Abortion Right have always been atop Rudy's list of priorities.
All this teeth gnashing and wailing will be fun to look back at in a few months when Rudy has the nomination sealed up.
I think some folks here think that because social issues are the most important to them personally, that the same is true for the majority of the GOP. They are wrong.
The majority of Republicans know in their hearts that RG will defend this nation. That's why he will be the next POTUS.
The social issues are secondary to the GWOT. The majority of Republicans know this. That doesn't mean they aren't important. It just means they are not the #1 issue.
Actually social issues don't make 2nd place either.
The election will be about the GWOT and the economy.
This is why Rudy will win.
;-)
Precisely. Rudy voters think social conservatives are unimportant, out of touch, and dedicated to secondary issues.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
If socons actually believe that any social issue is more important than defending this nation from its enemies, I think "out of touch" would be one of the nicer descriptions.
If you think McCain, Romney, Thompson, etc. are advocates of surrender and appeasement, "out of touch" is exactly the phrase for you.
There's no reason why the GOP can't elect someone who believes in defending America and defending life. Unless, of course, the idea is to shove aside pro-lifers and their concerns.
For many Giuliani fans I know, this is precisely the idea.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
is quite conservative on social issues. They are important to me. Sadly, my security and way of life is trumping that right now, so some of those other issues take a back seat. My #1 concern is the security and defense of this nation. Rudy, Fred, and John McCain are the only ones that seem to remotely know how to deal with those issues I love Fred, but am concerned he can not win. I have issues with McCain and really couldn't support him in a primary, but he does understand the absolute necessity of the GWOT.
I do not feel that other SOCONS are unimportant. I'm simply trying to convince them that we have a few other things that are more pressing.
That's all.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
...because as we all know, the other Republicans will surrender the GWOT immediately after their swearing-in.
We obviously have no choice but to vote for Rudy, or the terrorists will win.
As for your "majority of Republicans know.....," I'm glad to hear that you know for a fact that most Republicans will give-up their Social/Moral/Cultural/Gun issues without blinking. I have been waiting to hear from that person who speaks for the majority of Republicans.
Rudy - incidentally - enjoys support of about a fifth of Republicans - hardly a majority.
And I'm with the group that continues to say: if you really think we'll all line up behind Rudy after SWEARING we won't, try us. Ross Perot will envy the Third-Party, grassroots effort the only Pro-Life, Pro-Gun candidate on the ballot in 2008 will get.
Meanwhile, Rudy offers the Moderates nothing and Hillary offers free Health Care, Day Care, Car Care, and everything else. Rudy toes the hardcore line on Iraq, et al, and Hillary says whatever the polls say people want to hear - with a record of "supporting the war" to back her up.
You'll miss us.
Hope you enjoy eight years of Democrats and their SCOTUS appointments. You'll have a front row seat watching your prolife cause go swirling down the toilet.
Hey....but at least you'll have stood your ground though. What a comfort that will be while you watch the pro-choice crowd set the policy for decades to come.
I support Rudy because I know he will fight.
John McCain is an American hero, however his stand on "torture" renders him unfit to command.
Mitt Romney is a dead man walking....he just doesn't know it yet.
I think FDT would make an excellent CINC. But if he's not willing to fight tooth and nail for the nomination and the presidency, how could we trust him with our security?
I respect your stand on abortion. So does Rudy.
What I don't respect is the apparent willingness of some pro-lifers to cut off their nose to spite their face....ie..."I won't vote for Rudy because....blahblahblahbittyblah..."
By your "reasoning" we never would have elected Reagan.
If you're a true conservative you will vote for the GOP nominee whomever he is. Otherwise you are just looking for someone to pander to your cause. That's what the Dems like. Maybe you should consider switching parties.
---"Maybe you should consider switching parties."---
Oh, if Rudy wins the nod, I will - just not to Democrat.
And you can sell the Pro-Life Rudy crap to someone who doesn't know better. He'll be just as Pro-Abortion as he always has been - so much so that NARAL prefered him to Hillary. 100% chance of Pro-Roe justices either way - it's just that if Hillary wins we get to fight for a remedy in 2012, whereas if Rudy wins we're screwed for decades.
I think social conservatives are beginning to drift into the land of Nice Theory rather than practical application. Abortion is simply the litmus test now. No matter if a candidate is for raising taxes, Arkansas highways or not (Huckabee); or has no foreign policy experience (Huckabee again); or has any governing experience (Thompson and McCain.) Look, I believe abortion is evil and I look forward to the day it gets kicked back to the states. But there are other issues that are just as important - saving our way of life from facist-left courts, getting control over our money, getting illegal immigration under control, protecting our way of life from Islam-hijackers who want to send us back to the Stone Age with them.
---"But there are other issues that are just as important - saving our way of life from facist-left courts, getting control over our money, getting illegal immigration under control, protecting our way of life from Islam-hijackers who want to send us back to the Stone Age with them."---
And how is Rudy better than all the other GOPers on these issues? He seems worse on almost all of them.
What is Rudy's foreign policy experience, again? What is his governing experience? Mayor of a city?
Oh wait....it's a really big city he was Mayor of....LOL....maybe Koch and Dinkins were Presidential material after all.
How about his military experience to be Commander-In-Chief? How did Rudy handle it when his number was called back in the day? Was he tough on those Communists? What are his National Security credentials again - nominating Bernie Kerik to run DHS?!?!
Every one of these GOPers would fight the War - except for Ronpaul. It's just that with Rudy - you get to stick your thumb in the eye of those dreaded SoCons and GunCons at the same time. Their issues don't matter in a time of war, after all, and we've declared perpetual war.
And yet I have to hear the laughable - utterly ridiculous - gut-bustingly hilarious meme that the next Preisdent will reduce the size of the federal Government - even in the face of Two Dem Houses. It's never been reduced, but the next guy will do it - this time for sure! Heck, Rudy will do it just based on the sheer strength of his personality!
Right.
New York City has more people than some European countries. Add to that NYC was, as George Will called it, "the liberal social experiment of the 80's and 90's," and Giuliani still turned it around with a mainly-Democrat city council and court system. There is no reason to think he wouldn't approach Washington the same way.
No, the mayor is not perfect. Yes, he has problems. I have some problems with him, but to outright dismiss him based on 20% of his platform isn't right.
Odd math.
Sued to stop Welfare Reform.
Tried to bankrupt gun manufacturers.
Led the battle for Gun Control.
One of the most fervent Abortion Rights Activists in America.
Liberal Judges - never even fought for a Conservative one in NYC.
Opposed School Vouchers - apologized at CPAC.
Sanctuary City.
Pro-Roe.
Pro-PBA.
Pro-Hate Crimes legislation.
Global Warming.
Campaign Finance Reform - said it didn't go far enough.
Gay "Rights."
Endorsement of Democrats for key offices.
Ferrett ban (authoritarian issues).
Gun "Extremists."
Pro-Commuter tax -- another lawsuit.
Non-Personal Personal Life.
And on and on.....
More like 10% agreement than 20% disagreement.
And he was still Mayor of a City - just saying it was a big city doesn't change that. So was/are David Dinkins, Harold Washington, and David Dermer. He never held a statewide office, even in his own State.
The problem is that the 20% he's wrong about happens to be the 20% that religious and social conservatives care about. If his 20% were scattered all over the Republican spectrum, like McCain, nominating Giuliani wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. And Giuliani wouldn't be getting nearly the support from the anti-socons that he's getting.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
And again, FisCons get much of that same 20% problem with Huckabee - though I think not to the same extreme.
Agreed. Huckabee's positions and beliefs probably aren't as bad for small government conservatives as Giuliani's are for social and religious conservatives. But what makes Huckabee just as bad for the Republican big tent is that he's explicitly positioning himself as the Christian identity politics candidate.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Huckabee is wrong on 100%. He's following a track with HLA and FMA that do nothing but energize the opposition (remember the ERA?) and he will get nothing, including good judges.
On the Fiscal side, he's a budding socialist. On the war... let's close Gitmo! On cooperating with Congress... let's investigate Bush on Plame.
He is the most unacceptable candidate I can possibly imagine. Ron Paul has better points than Huckabee.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
While I can understand why you think that way, I don't see it. I'm a reluctant Giuliani supporter. I'm more of a FisCon than anything. And his endorsement by Steve Forbes along with the recent praise from Grover Norquist holds a lot of weight for me.
But I have not decided to support Giuliani as a way to flip anybody the bird. I value a great deal other members of the conservative coalition who aren't completely ideologically aligned with me.
I can appreciate why a social conservative wouldn't like him, much less prefer him. But I really don't think there's much "Take this you fundie bigots!" to the Giuliani juggernaut.
Anecdote is not the singular of data. In other words, just because you can support a candidate who has little to offer social conservatives without disrespecting social conservatives doesn't mean that other Giuliani supporters can pull off the same trick.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I'd rather have Ron Paul than either. Republicans tend to bash Paul, but I think they're animus is driven by his position on Iraq. As the Iraq issue fades, he should be more palatable to core conservatives. Right now, I think he would be more healthy for the party and the conservative movement than either Rudy or Huckabee. Rudy and Huckabee are dangerous and people outside their respective camps are using them to tear down Romney at their own peril. My new six looks like this:
Acceptable:
1) Romney
2) Thompson
3) Paul
4) McCain
Unacceptable:
5) Huckabee
6) Rudy
I know its not Giuliani or Huckabee.
So what does a big tent candidate start with? How would we define the big tent candidate.
I'll take a shot at this. I think he or she has to be a fiscal conservative who supports conservative social values and the war on terror, and is loyal to the party when the need arises. Thats the starting point. Based on this you can remove mccain as well. Romney might be that guy, if you believe him. Many don't.
Could Thompson be that person? Maybe. But Duncan Hunter sure fits it well. But Thompson is falling and Hunter has never taken off.
Who else is there? I strongly suspect we will see Hunter and Thompson begin to do very well after the initial primaries. Whether that is enough, who knows. That's why we vote.
Romney. No one seriously disputes his fi-con and def-con commitment. When he had the chance to run as a pure technocrat and minimize so-con issues, he threw in his lot with the so-cons. That, to me, is worth a lot.
McCain. He doesn't alienate any large factions like Huckabee or Giuliani. In fact, he's a very popular #2 choice. True, he doesn't pass the party loyalty test, but that's as a senator. When you're president, you can't be a maverick, because you're the agenda setter.
Thompson. He's certainly not running on ability. And he can't run on style anymore. The big tent angle is all he's got.
Where does "fundy bigots from the South." come from? Just your own head? I have never heard any of these supposed slurs of religious people or southerners from economic conservatives. We are the personal responsibility party, can have somewhat different philosophies, but I have not read virtually any disrespect on the part of economic conservatives versus religious conservatives.
Giuliani does not represent a small tent party at all. In stark contrast with Huckabee, he has been doing everything he can to attract social conservatives. While Huckabee is critisizing Wall Street and the Club for Growth as greedy and out of touch, Giuliani is promising conservative judges, no gun control legislation, and support for the gay marriage amendment if more states start passing gay marriage. He is reaching out to social conservatives and his passions are on economic and foreign policy issues.
Huckabee on the other hand, is just as passionate about spending more of our money and running a nanny state as he is about social issues. As I mentioned, he is openly critical of economic conservatives. He is either trying to create a rift or just can't help himself. There is no example of Giuliani campaigning against social conservatives.
Telling us "I might not be the Rudy Giuliani I have always been on Guns and Abortion." is hardly doing "everything he can to reach out."
Pro-Lifers wanting to "Put women in jail for having aboritons," Gun Control STILL what he credits for the drop in NYC crime. When asked directly, says he'd have to "see the bill" before he'd veto any new Gun Control Legislation, he STILL supports public funding of Abortion....
"Reaching out" by Rudy consists of him using more carefully scripted to defend his long-standing positions, while his damage control team comes out to tell us why his positions don't matter anyway.
You want reaching-out? Look at Mitt Romney. Rudy's not reaching-out, he's getting chafed from trying to ride the fence so much.
Between reaching out and telling you what you want to hear.
Giuliani has reached out. Romney has pandered like nobody I've ever seen has pandered before.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
My first thought was "another of those unsolicited messages about the male member" which keep piling up in my e-mail Inbox.
a href="http://andrightlyso.com/index.php">And Rightly So!
Rudy has "reached out" by saying "I love you, man, and take your issues seriously but not so seriously as to say, adopt them."
Thanks but no thanks.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Granted he can't erase his somewhat unappealing personal life. But he can say five short syllable: "Roe should be reversed." He hasn't. He could endorse a marriage amendment. He hasn't.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
...passed thru here in the past who evoked that attitude...they were both hard-core Fred-bashers, as I recall. I won't name names, but I think they got booted for over-zealous botting.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I agree that Giuliani and Huckabee represent different wings of the party. However, I don't think that means we chose someone in the middle. Why not both?
Giuliani/Huckabee sounds like a solid ticket to me.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I don't want Bubba Jr. anywhere NEAR the Oval Office. And I certainly don't want him thinking about running against Bobby Jindal in 2016.
BJ needs to retire from public life, go back to Arkansas and see if there's some way he can get that $70,000 worth of furniture he had to give back.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
would be a very competitive ticket. I'm not a fan of Huckabee, but if it helped consolidate the base a bit I'm all for it.
Unless you are looking to maximize the number of Republican voters you alienate.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Hillary could win all 50 states against that ticket.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
that if nominated I would vote for (not support) EITHER Rudy or Huck. I also made a commitment that if they team up I will stay home. Eight years I might stomach. Sixteen, never.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Guiliani's propensity for authoritarianism scares me more than Huckabee's.
I'd rather have my trans fat taken away than my guns.
Immigration is an issue that is very important to me and for that reason, these two are both my least favorite candidates.
Immigration has the potential to be one of the few issues that really breaks in the Republicans' favor in the 2008 election. Unfortunately these two would be totally incapable of capitalizing on that opportunity because they are essentially both essentially aligned with the Democrats on the illegal immigration issue.
McCain has the same problem.
Maybe. Truthfully, the way I see it, both aren't small tent. More like they are sneaking around and pulling out the tent pegs.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
The sooner we get down to the acceptable candidates, the better. McCain was unacceptable to me because of immigration and McCain-Feingold, but Huckabee changed that.