Redstate

1. Huckabee did not "destroy" Fred Thompson's campaign. Fred did.
2. Huckabee is an empty suit. He has no clue about economics, tax policy, foreign affairs or immigration policy just for starters. He also has no policy initiatives on life and family issues that can be implemented.
3. Huckabee will drive away all of the "independent" voters McCain is going to need to win.
4. Huckabee will also cause a significant number of conservatives to not vote the top of the ticket.

If you really think that he brings anything but theocracy to the ticket, you need to go to a 12 step meeting.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Insulting Huckabee voters by saying they are for a "theocracy" is not wise. The majority of voters are Christians, and many take offense at this attitude. This kind of talk fuels an "It's us against the world" type of attitude among Christian conservatives. It's this resistant attitude that is keeping Mike Huckabee from withdrawing right now. His supporters are sick of being taken for granted by the Republican Party, so they are still flooding his campaign with phone calls and contributions imploring him not to give up.

The VP pick doesn't necessarily have to be Huckabee to win their support in November, but it shouldn't be someone like Giuliani or Romney who they perceive as hostile to their core values.

You guys got absolutely the most social conservative president in US history. A president that ran on his oppostion to gay marriage, a President who used his first veto to oppose ESCR, and a President that gave us two down the line socially conservative judges. If anyone needs to step back and look at their waah wahh no one loves me argument, its the socons, who the Bush administration bowed down to at every single opportunity. As much as you guys love Slick Huckster, the rest of the country finds him disgusting, and if you don't think that "changing the Constitution to fit God's standards" would be replayed over and over and over again, you are at best naive, but at worst an idiot. But judging by your support of Huckabee when he has no mathematical chance of winning, I'd be willing to bet today's paycheck on the latter. Here's your stick back Becker.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

I'm not supporting Huckabee. I'm with McCain. He gives us our best chance to win, and Huckabee can't come back from the hole he's in.

With mbecker908, insults are a way of life. And he does them so well.

On a lighter note, why do they (you) perceive Rudy and Mitt as
"hostile to their core values"?

Romney has supported right-to-life for several years, and Rudy is not antagonistic to it. Is that all you care about, that one issue, an issue that depends for change on a new SC, a Court which both of them have said they will help by nominating the right kind of judges?

Or are there other "core values" that you're referring to?

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

EricB

I just wanted to check if you were a Democrat per chance, you certainly play the role of victim and victimization well.

The mime of "being taken for granted" is wearing thin, at least for anyone that has been paying attention for the last 7 years. Here's you a hint, how many vetoes and on what topics has El Resident Bush signed? It sure has heck has not been on matters fiscal, immigration or anything else that passes for real conservatism.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

The root of the comment comes from Huck's insistence at fronting his faith at every opportunity. As an evangelical I find it completely inappropriate and frankly disgusting and pandering. If there's and "us vs. them" line drawn, it's Huck who's gone out of his way to draw it.

In addition, I am more than a lot sick and tired of hearing about how "taken for granted" SoCons are. They are the wing of the party who has gotten the most out of the Bush Administration - judges, Schiavo (jousting at windmills) and the only veto of his first six years. Frankly, the noisy ones (Huck's supporters) come across as a bunch of single issue whiners.

With respect to your comment about Rudy and Mitt, I find it to be insane. Mitt certainly can't be said to be "hostile" to their core values and Rudy went out of his way to toss a fig leaf to SoCons with his judicial commission and with his promise to keep all pro-life administrative restraints (Mexico City, etal) in place. Not to mention the fact that Rudy governed NYC one hell of a lot more conservatively - and brought down both the abortion rate and the absolute number of abortions - than Huckabee governed Arkansas.

And finally, I come back to my original point: Mike Huckabee is an empty suit. His positions are plucked from websites, his policies are absolutely unworkable, and his advisors are non-existant. If SoCons think he is a qualified conservative, they should not be ALLOWED to vote.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

that Huck comes off as a too "theocratic". At one time Huck was in my tenative top three candidates ( McCain, Huck, and Brownback I think it was - can you think of a greater list.
:-) but his comment to the effect of making the constitution into a living breathing Christian document has made it hard for made it so I might struggle with him even being VP. As a SDA Christian I am a very strong supporter of a separation of church and state. Okay, now to my usual disagreeing with you.

"In addition, I am more than a lot sick and tired of hearing about how "taken for granted" SoCons are." The movement to make the vast majority of the 1,000,000 murders a year illegal have been marginal - yes we've had a PBA ban which bans a very small number of abortions - and I have troble understanding why people are even debating PBA. The gains for SoCons have been marginal, and I think that's because the issues aren't being decided democratically, but by a liberal academic elite. So it seems you would be able to understand the frustrations of SoCons.
As to opposition to Romney and Rudy being insane, consider that they have both been on record as in favor of Roe. The timing of Romney's conversion seemed suspicious. Rudy refused to ever denounce Roe, unlike I think every other candidate - you surely can't tell me that isn't reason for SoCons to be queasy about Rudy.
Now, just ftr I was leaning towards supporting Rudy in the general if he got the nod - his speech to the FedSoc really impressed me and he had a great judicial team. I also gave Romney the benefit of the doubt and leaned toward him as my second choice after McCain. So I wasn't the biggest anti - Romney or anti - Rudy guy, but I certainly understand why SoCons were queasy with these choices, and I think that should be pretty clear to anyone.

With respect to making abortion illegal, there is no will or desire in the US to do that. Restrict it, yes, stop it, no. Why might that be? Thanks for asking. Until SoCons get their act together and understand that a change of that magnitude requires a real "change of heart" by the people - all of 'em - and set to work to "sell life", it won't happen. It's not the fault of the Republican Party, it's the fault of all of us who oppose abortion. We haven't sold our POV. Until we do, the Congress certainly isn't going to act, other than on the margins. And that's about where we are today. If we can get Roe overturned, we can regulate abortion and likely reduce the total number and incidence, but the national will to stop abortion does not exist.

As far as "being on record as being in favor of Roe" is concerned, that's largely a straw man. What matters is where they are now and how they will govern. I can understand SoCons being nudgy about Romney or Rudy because of their past positions, but both have at least made strong outreaches them. Which, BTW, is a whole lot more than Huckabee has done to FisCons.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

have failed at selling pro-life and that this is esential to making enough progress on the issue. That doesn't mean I'm willing to surrender the party to a pro-choice candidate, I think could be a potentially very damaging to the pro-life movement. Of course Huckabee getting elected as the SoCon candidate and going on to lose in a landslide could be extremely damaging to the SoCon movement also.
Rudy did make some strong outreaches, and it got this Brownback-Huck-McCain ( well maybe not Huck) conservative to consider voting for him in the general. One big red flag though, was that when every other candidate denounced Roe, he still refused to do so. And of course Romney was my tenative second choice for president, so I would say we pretty much agree about him. I think Romney might make a great VP.

PC

Except that no one with a 100 percent, hard core anti abortion position can win a national election, America does not agree with the absolute position.

Brownback could not win on a national level, Huckabee cannot win on a national level.

While a candidate that makes the overturn of Roe the centerpiece of his /her campaign may appeal to social conservatives, the country as a whole will not vote for them.

Read a bit about Reagan and the abortion issue. He was personally against abortion, worked behind the scenes to reduce abortion, yet he did not run on ending Roe and did not from what I have read ever appear in public with any of the leaders of the anti-abortion movement. I'm pretty sure that in the latest Reagan book of his personal diary, very little if any of his daily writings were on the subject of abortion.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

candidate and I never said we should run one. We can win and have won however, with candidates who are on record as being against Roe, and fortunately we're running such a candidate.

PA

Check again, check McCain's rating from the various Right to Life groups. I believe he scores close to 100 percent.

He clearly does not make abortion and an open appeal to social conservatives part of his main campaign like America's Pastor does, but he's not Rudy G. ether.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Are you having trouble reading this. I said we could run a candidate opposed to Roe and we are doing that, I'm positive on McCain.

voters in several states seem to think Huckabee is the best candidate its probably in our best interest to still let them vote. I know we both don't want the party of retreat at all costs and let liberal elites decide all social and cultural issues, to have a permanent majority.

I've just about convinced myself that Romney should be the VP candidate. All the solid but unknown conservatives in the country aren't going to help McCain in this election.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Romney would be a really bad VP candidate. McCain needs someone who is socially and economically conservative. Romney may be economically conservative, but he's not socially conservative. If he was, he would have beaten Huckabee in Iowa and in the South. Huckabee also shouldn't be the pick because he's the opposite as Romney, economically moderate but socially conservative. I don't know who he should pick, but not Romney or Huckabee.

It's wrong to say that Romney is not a social conservative. In spite of what he said as a candidate, when he was governor he came down on the side of traditional values every single time:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mike_griffith/2008/jan/26/lets_be_reasonab...

It's wrong to say that Huckabee is not a fiscal conservative. It's also wrong to say that Romney is not a social conservative.

I agree that Huckabee would be a good VP pick.

Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm

He would appeal to social conservatives, who form a crucial part of the GOP base. The GOP will not win if values voters stay home. Even the Dems angrily admitted that values voters made the difference for Bush in 2004. If they sit home, the GOP is tubed.

If they do sit at home they'll be relegated to a permanent minority status in the Republican Party. Single-issue social conservatives have gotten their way with the eventual nominee for the past 28 years. Reagan and Dole were also fiscal conservatives, but GHWB was not, and neither has GWB been one. The fiscons and milcons going forward will ignore the social conservatives and their issues and find other voters with which to join to accomplish their goals. The single-issue social conservatives will then have nowhere to turn and will be insignificant and impotent in politics. McCain is socially conservative enough to keep the status quo.

Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket here.

He would appeal to pro-gun voters, who form another critical part of the GOP base. Huckabee's record on guns is better than McCain's. In fact, Huckabee is an ardent defender of the 2nd Amendment. So he would help with gun owners who are nervous about McCain's commitment to gun rights.

Single-issue gun voters are nearly non-existent. Most supporters of the second amendment will be content to stay with the status-quo. McCain will be acceptable to them on this issue.

Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket here.

He's from the South and has proven he can do well in that region

He's not the only potential VP selection from the South, and quite frankly there are many others that bring a lot more to the table.

Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket here.

He's a great speaker and has a friendly, likable personality, which would come in handy against Obama.

The last thing our ticket needs is a great speaker that will overshadow our top ticket nominee.

Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket here.

He's a fiscal conservative. This becomes clear when one looks at his fiscal record fairly and objectively

No, he's not. Only ardent Huckabee supporters are willing to say this. He's a populist. He wants to spend my money and yours on government social programs. That is not fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatives don't like him. All of them don't like him.

Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket here.

He should be acceptable to national defense conservatives. In spite of his (perfectly justified) criticisms of certain aspects of Bush's foreign policy, his positions on the war on terror and on the war in Iraq are quite similar to McCain's and Romney's.

1. His criticism was not perfectly justified. It did real damage to the conservative cause on the GWOT. You don't take your opponent's talking points and use them against one of your own.

2. There's simply no way you can say that Huckabee's experience in foreign policy is anwhere close to McCain's. Romney perhaps. Huckabee has shown with his words and his policy statments that he's completely clueless when it comes to foreign policy.

Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket here.

Huckabee's use of religious rhetoric would haunt McCain's campaign. His history on fiscal issues would drive away even more fiscal conservatives. His history on ethics and pardons would drive away even more law-and-order conservatives.

I say all of this as a solid, pro-life, Christian, evangelical social conservative. As I said at the beginning of this comment, you single-issue social conservatives can feel free to sit this election out. You just need to be prepared to become completely irrelevant to future Republican campaigns for many years.

FDT's Principles