Huck's win and the revenge of the SoCons

By Alexham Posted in | | Comments (248) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

As the only Huck-supporting Redstate contributor, I thought it would be appropriate for me to offer a few thoughts on tonight's victory.

First, Governor Huckabee's win in Iowa sends a message to the GOP establishment that SoCons are not going to sit back and allow the party to be hijacked by those who don't have our interests at heart. We are still the heart and soul of the party, and we're not going anywhere. If you want the nomination, you're going to have to deal with us and our concerns (i.e., "Culture of Life" issues).

Second, Governor Huckabee's win demonstrates that grass-roots conservatives have flatly rejected the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Mitt can stay in as long as he wishes to fund his own campaign, but he's essentially done. McCain is going to win New Hampshire, and either McCain or Huckabee is going to win South Carolina. So, if you been waiting to buy ol' Hugh's book (but didn't want to pay full price for it), just wait a week or so, and it will be on sale at your local Sam's Club in the dollar bin.

Third, Governor Huckabee desperately needs to reach out to FisCons and DefCons immediately if he stands any chance of winning the nomination and/or presidency. The brutal truth, Huckfans, is that there are many legitimate criticisms of our boy regarding his fidelity to fiscal conservatism and preparedness to handle complex national-security issues. He needs to deal with these concerns in a way that shows his skeptics within the party that he is ready to be the nominee of the entire party, not just SoCons.

Finally, the hostility currently being leveled at Huckabee by many Republicans needs to be dialed down a few notches. If you want to criticize him on substantive grounds, please feel free to do so (indeed, I've done so myself); but some of the attacks that have been made against him on this website border on being ridiculous. At some point, we're all going to have to start singing from the same hymnal again, and that's not going to be easy to do if folks continue to characterize a potential nominee of our party as the anti-Christ.

Now, on to South Carolina!


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | John McCain Wins Iowa. The House Falls on Hillary. Fred Gets A Second Chance. $10 Million and all Romney got was 2nd.Comments (29) »
Huck's win and the revenge of the SoCons 248 Comments (0 topical, 248 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Now we get to hear how this didn't matter, and Huck's not a conservative, and all that.

Of course, if the Huckaboom continues, then what?

I remember arguing with contributors on this site who kept saying Romney was inevitable.

He wasn't, and isn't. Neither is Rudy. The grassroots SoCon vote is back, and boy is it ticked.

Bye Romney. Eventually, bye Rudy.

Fred? Not bad. I can live with that. McCain? Not my first choice, but I've heard a lot worse ideas. But the Northeastern liberals will soon be gone, and Huckabee may just still be standing.

Isn't that just a hoot?

In what area has the GOP failed to deliver on ANY of the socon movement's goals? W. Bush is about as socially conservative as you can get.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

This 100% or else attitude won't be liked by them if a number of us refuse to vote for the Huckster because he is most definitely not 100% conservative, except in pandering mode.

Great strategy, pump up one of the weakest general election candidates and risk losing a chance for one or two more Supreme court picks.

Yeah, I really don't understand who gave the evangelicals the right to first refusal.

Maybe some of us should start threatening to withhold votes instead of being bullied around by holier than thou Christians.

when some Huckabee supporters assume his critics are only evangelical haters or atheists. I'm getting real tired having to say that I'm a conservative prolife Christian. Or the other tired one, it's the elites in the GOP. Well, thanks for the promotion, but I would like the paycheck that goes along with that.

because they turned out. Maybe we should means-test who gets to vote, you know, some kind of voting affirmative action to limit evangelicals who can caucus so you don't feel so left out and bullied.

Rudy '08

For one, I will not be pushed around by SoCons.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Who gave the evangelicals the "right to first refusal"?

We did. In 2000 and 2004 (and 1992) we needed those evangelicals to get over the hump. We've pandered to them, flattered them, pretended that those "social values" were more important than anything else. And when they found out that Conservatives are human too, that we cheat on our wives, get divorced, some of us more than once, they found us wanting. They were unhappy that some of us didn't rush to abandon science. They hated that some of us believed that government didn't have the right to tell women they had to carry fetuses to term. They even hated that some of us USED to believe that.

Chickens, meet roost.

Hmmm.... I don't see any title of ownership on the republican party.

But thank you so kindly for your (imagined) generosity and going out of your way to accommodate us in YOUR party.

and small government conservatives. I really want to see Huck win when they all decide they just don't give a c*** whether Huck or Obama wins.
______________________________
"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 will never ever vote for your socialist candidate but you deserve all the credit. Romney got whipped like a one-legged man in an butt-kicking contest.

And I love to see Romney squirm.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

When Huck is the answer to a trivia question twenty years from now, just like Pat Robertson is today. And to be fair to Robertson, he actually was a bonafide conservative when he won Iowa twenty years ago. He deserved better than one state, but that's all he got. Que sera, sera.

Huckabee deserves zero states, but Iowa had a fit of madness. Que sera, sera. It will be his only state.

Bye, Mike. And take your holier-than-thou faux conservatism with you. I've said it before, but I'll repeat it here: If it's Huckabee or McCain (or Paul, but he has no realistic chance), I write in Mickey Mouse in the general election. And all you single-issue pro-life voters will have to deal with President Hillary or Obama. Get used to it.

have to deal with it too, unless you plan on moving out of the country.

If we're going to be stuck with an inept, big government tax-and-spend liberal socialist for the next four years, I'd rather have it be someone with a D after his name than a Democrat in drag like Huckabee.

And I really do think it's hilarious how you single-issue Huck supporters will now have to face the prospect of having your candidate go down in flames when philosophical (i.e. fiscally responsible, small-government) conservatives stay home on election day. Shoe's on the other foot now, isn't it? Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, and cry in your Shirley Temples on election day (if the Huckster actually gets the nomination, that is)...

I have held back my opinions from this site as of late. The anti-Huckabee posts have been so vitriolic it's unbelievable.

There are NO Reagan like Republicans in this field, period. So let's not delude ourselves. The GOP in general has lost its conservative course in Washington. Is Huckabee the answer, maybe. Then, again, so may Fred Thompson, but he better get in gear and fast. The deck is stacked against the GOP in this election cycle so it's not just the rank and file Republicans that need convincing.

The term Laura Ingraham gave tonight on Romney is perfect. He comes across as a patrician. Huckabee does come across as an everyday guy and has the results to back it up. But I believe Huckabee has the chance to better relate to the average guy than anyone else in this field.

I will support anyone in the GOP over the Democrats, but we in the GOP must do a better job of getting the message across to the country. Otherwise, a Democrat will most definitely be occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Jan. '09.

This guy hit his high water mark in 1984 when he worked for Reagan. Since then, he has manned liberal Republican campaigns such as Michael Huffington and Christie Todd Whittman (both staunch pro-choicers, mind you). He also ran Ross Perot's populist socially liberal campaign - and we all know we have that fiasco to thank for 8 years of Bill Clinton.

He was on Fox tonight talking about again how the GOP needs to be more populist, and he got kinda nasty and rude with Chris Wallace for no reason.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

The guy melted down. heh.

As I posted before - with a good showing here, I hope thompson can syphon the Romney campaign's voters and win it all. :)

He was quoted somewhere as saying he would like to knock out Romney's teeth, and the context left no doubt that he meant it literally, and wasn't just a metaphor for elections. He also said in the same article that he loved negative campaigning and getting down and dirty. How Huck could hire this guy as his campaign chair and still say that he's a clean, wholesome campaigner is beyond me.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

Apparently now pro-life, left wing populism now = conservatism

Thanks a lot Iowa

And before Huckabee shot up, these thoughts would have applied to the anti-Rudy crowd:

but some of the attacks that have been made against him on this website border on being ridiculous. At some point, we're all going to have to start singing from the same hymnal again, and that's not going to be easy to do if folks continue to characterize a potential nominee of our party as the anti-Christ.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I can't see how Huckabee has any chance to win the general election. If this "revenge" attitude keeps up and he wins the nomination, then more than likely loses the election, it will damage Christian conservative influence in politics.

And btw, how about telling Huckabee supporters to quit thinking those of us who criticize the saint must only be evangelical haters or atheists?

"And btw, how about telling Huckabee supporters to quit thinking those of us who criticize the saint must only be evangelical haters or atheists?"

That self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude will never go away. Tow the line or pay. That's why they hate Giuliani despite his proven record and why they abandoned Fred for speaking the truth about federalsim.

Mark, spot on. I'd be very interested in knowing how those sainting Gov. Huckabee would characterize the rest of us who disagree. Is it easier in biblical terms?

Zealots?
Sadducees?
Pagans?
Gentiles?

By the anti-Mormon comments on Gov. Huckabee's own presidential website, guessing they would get labeled the leppers.

tossed at me by a Huckabee supporter was that I was gullible. Of course he went on to just accept Huckabees defense of his parole record etc. so I didnt consider him all that much of an authority on being gullible except by personal experience.

That guy has also made positive comments before about having a theocracy in this country.

So that's why Iran is so warm to Huckabee

Huckabee is a white guilt-ridden clown, and his nomination would likely be a disaster, but the whole theocracy thing sounds like something the ridiculous Keith Olbermann would say.

that the hostility towards Huck needs to be moderate. Although I don't support him, he represents an important slice of a winning GOP coalition.

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that there are only two possible winners in SC (Huck or McCain). If Romney fades, the 30% of the party that was supporting him is going to look for another conservative-across-the-board candidate, and there Fred Thompson will be waiting for a second look. He should play particularly well in SC. We'll see.

They don't seem to mean the same things as when I do.

You call this the revenge of the SoCons. Let me ask just how do you think the rest of the party is going to feel about bearing the brunt of your vengeance ?

______________________________
"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

My point in using the word "revenge" has to do with those within our party who said at the beginning of this race that social issues would have to take a back seat to national-security issues. Well, tonight, SoCons sent a message: Culture of Life issues still matter.

I am not why your interpretation of "Culture of Life" would differ from mine. Perhaps you can explain exactly what you mean.
_________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Even you do it. Everyone of the Republican candidates competing in Iowa was solidly pro life. Mitt, McCain, Thompson, even loony man Ron Paul are all impeccably pro life. Rudy has even sworn allegiance and he wasn't even running. So when you assert culture of life is the issue when there is no disagreement on it, it obviously means something else.
______________________________
"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

Um by Alexham

Methinks you're painting with too broad of a brush., my friend. McCain supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Fred does not fully support the GOP plank on abortion. Mitt's record on prolife issues is sketchy at best. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

I am not saying that I don't consider any of the foregoing candidates prolife. Indeed, I think all of them clearly are prolife (even Romney). But to suggest there isn't a huge difference in Huck's commitment to "Culture of Life" issues to that of his competitors is just plain silly.

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

....is enough to overlook serious problems in Huck's record and platform?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I give you this though, I didn't know McCain was pro ESCR its one more reason for me not to like him.
______________________________
"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

So just as social conservatives can look at their support for Mike Huckabee as a protest against the Republican establishment and maverick moderates can look at their support for John McCain as a protest against tax cutting opponents of amnesty, across the board conservatives can leave the presidential portion of the general election ballot blank in November if either McCain or Huckabee wins the GOP nomination.

Currently, I have a perfect record of supporting Republicans for president. But this perfect record will be broken if either McCain or Huckabee wins the nomination.

To have the republican caucus in the house and senate fighting to the right against a dem president than it is to have a republican president pulling to the left.

Please, no more presidents fighting for amnesty, no more Harriet Myers like nominations and most of all, no more republicans that spend on social programs like FDR.

I wouldn't be concerned about a Democrat presidency next year if I thought we would have the house or senate. The unfortunate truth is though that unless we win the presidency, the Democrats will very likely have absolute control of the government and the congress will rubber stamp every single goddamn thing President Hillary or Obama put forth.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

Doing that will prime us for another '94. Particularly if there is a national figure promising budget sanity and action on illegal immigration.

because Huckabee's position on abortion was the same as Fred Thompson's not long ago.

The federalist approach is the one with the most likely chance of success in moving this country in a pro-life direction that will have a lasting effect, rather than just swing back and forth from one extreme to another.

Huckabee's win in Iowa sends a message to the GOP establishment that SoCons are not going to sit back and allow the party to be hijacked by those who don't have our interests at heart. We are still the heart and soul of the party, and we're not going anywhere. If you want the nomination, you're going to have to deal with us and our concerns (i.e., "Culture of Life" issues).

So Thompson, McCain, and even Romney are just laughing the so-cons off? Last I checked, the only candidate who didn't toe the line, at the very least, on social issues was Rudy, and he skipped Iowa.

Huckabee's win demonstrates that grass-roots conservatives have flatly rejected the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Mitt can stay in as long as he wishes to fund his own campaign, but he's essentially done.

Let me stop laughing for a moment.

OK, now that that's done, Romney beat everyone but Huckabee by a solid margin. Is Mitt a grass-roots candidate? No. But our party is not merely grass-roots. If that was the case, Ron Paul would have won the night. His grass-roots support easily beats Huckabee every time. Huckabee is enjoying a surge because of a lack of scrutiny in the MSM and because of his Christian-identity politics (which, as a Christian, I find to be abhorant).

Huckabee desperately needs to reach out to FisCons and DefCons immediately if he stands any chance of winning the nomination and/or presidency. The brutal truth, Huckfans, is that there are many legitimate criticisms of our boy regarding his fidelity to fiscal conservatism and preparedness to handle complex national security issues. He needs to deal with these concerns in a way that shows his skeptics within he party that he is ready to be the nominee of the entire party, not just SoCons.

I have to give you props on this one. It's about the only thing I agreed with in this entire post.

the hostility currently being leveled at Huckabee by many Republicans needs to be dialed down a few notches. If you want to criticize him on substantive grounds, please feel free to do so (indeed, I've done so myself); but some of the attacks that have been made against him on this website border on being ridiculous.

Please expand on this last part, because most everyone has been criticizing him for exactly that-he is hiding from his record as governor, and playing identity politics, hoping that his bonafides as a Baptist will be enough to add a white mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania to his golden mansion in Heaven. His supporters all cry out religious bigotry when you criticize his immigration record, yet think nothing of his out-loud thought on whether Mormons thought Jesus and Satan are brothers.

Finally, Ron Paul still sucks.

OK, I lied up above. I agree with this too.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

So Thompson, McCain, and even Romney are just laughing the so-cons off?

They did all snub the Values Voter Debate, remember?

That's odd-I thought I was pretty socially conservative, and yet I don't even pay attention to the FRC.

Look at their stances and see where they disagree with the so-cons. Then get back to me.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

Brother,

This 'aint gonna' happen.

DefCONS. Gov. Huckabee has made too many glaring gaffes on national security issues. His desire to coddle up to Iran, close Git'mo, his inability to know if Afghanistan is East or West of Pakistan and flubbing the NIE report is too big a pill to swallow, even if cut in half. If Mitt's support goes elsewhere, it will be to McCain, Thompson and Giuliani depending on the state.

FisCONS. When you label a grassroots group (Club for Growth) the Club for Greed, you're not getting any FisCON kudos. Gov. Huckabee's tax and spend ways were as liberal as the day is long. Rush pointed asmuch out this week when he said instead of accepting whatever tax increase came across his desk, a real FisCON would have fought for cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Advantage to Thompson, Giuliani and McCain in that order.

Depending on further flubs, Gov. Huckabee is in the fight of his life for first in SC. If he can't repeat, he's done, finito. The continued McCain/Huckabee back-room deals will come to a halt in SC. If Ed Rollins could get a nap and cool a bit, he'd realize SC is moving towards McCain.

This all is going to get bloodier. Giuliani may still pose a chance having skipped out the bloodbaths leading up to Florida.

Nice score in Iowa Gov. Huckabee. Time to double down.

"Rush pointed as much out this week when he said instead of accepting whatever tax increase came across his desk, a real FisCON would have fought for cuts elsewhere in the budget."

Rush has repeatedly tried to stay neutral on the primary, but it's real obvious that over-reaching by Huck supporters have pushed him over the edge.

Nice try, Huck is no Reagan.

(Though granted of the Fusion Conservative type)

I've had enough of the slimy Arkansas politics with Clinton.

The Jesus and Satan are brothers comment, the I'm gonna run a positive campaign so let me show the ad I would have run if I wanted too...

Not only does it disgust me, but it insults my intelligence.

The hostility to Huckabee has little to do with his Social Conservatism (maybe a it does to a few gadflys but not to most of us).

In fact I liked Huckabee until he started with all the slick Willie style politics.

It was Rudy Guiliani that I was worried about, cause I don't want him as the candidate.

Trying to claim this as a victory for Social Conservatives is foolish- a Pyhrric victory perhaps.

Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives need to stick together and support straight forward politics. Not all this Tricky Dick stuff, (Don't forget Nixon also played the populist card too- remember the price controls?)

Romney or Thompson would be good B+ candidates. McCain would be an endurable C.

Guilaini is a F flirting with an D-, while Huckabee is so far below an F that the alphabet doesn't have letter to adequately describe it.

to the SNL bit with French Stewart answering "Threeve" to a question asking for any number on Jeopardy?

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

Now you made me go find that video...

(Sorry, I had to inject some levity and expand on your post. The results of Iowa are just as disgusting and depressing as watching Kansas winning the Orange Bowl. Talk about a downer double-header.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

Tonight is a horrible night!

(and, for all non-Mizzou fans, there is a reason for the lowercase k in kU. Capitalization is reserved for a proper noun, and kansas is neither a proper place, nor a proper thing. Simple grammar.)

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

5 by bs

>>>Romney or Thompson would be good B+ candidates. McCain would be an endurable C. Guilaini is a F flirting with an D-, while Huckabee is so far below an F that the alphabet doesn't have letter to adequately describe it.<<<

Perfect analysis.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

in your analogy, Huck could get an "I" for "incomplete."

lesterblog.blogspot.com

And I say that as one of the most conservative evangelicals who has ever conserved a conservative evangelical.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Alexham,
I find it very hard to believe that SoCons have been ignored. We just spent the last eight years with a president that got there by courting the evangelical vote and attempted to deliver on his promises to them. [Problem wasn't with Repubs...it was the fact that there wasn't a clear supermajority of congress to enact some of the proposals. As for the insistence that FMA and HLA are the only ways someone can be conservative: Please give me a break. Is it not conservative to want to overturn Roe...I would have to say that every Repub running wants to see that happen. And why do we really need a constitutional amendment to define marriage. It seems to me that even in those states where gay marriage was allowed that things have already begun to swing back to the traditional marriage. Besides...legal recognition or not, gay couples will still continue to live their lives the same way.]
There are other candidates on the table that are socially conservative also:
Fred Thompson has received several conservative prolife endorsements. He had a 100% prolife voting record.
John McCain has been very reliable also.
Others state their positions as pro-life...argue that they flipped to get elected...but it is their stated position.

Why do I have to buy into the notion that if I'm a SoCon that I must vote for Huck. I actually consider myself to be a So-Fis-Def Con (and pretty much any of the other tags people throw around...GWOT, etc). Huck is good on SoCon but def not so good on the others. His record as Gov is mixed in respects to fiscal matters and he has recently made comments about foreign events that make me believe that he wouldn't have a clue how to run our foreign policy.

Hope all you Huck supporters enjoy the ENTIRE U.S. Map going Blue for Barack Obama now that you've anointed Gomer Pyle to sainthood. Ed Rollins is a loser!

That's a good word to describe it. Do you know what revenge leads to? Isolation.

Yes, So-cons deserve a place at the table. They showed what they could do when they shot Giuliani in the leg. A heady feeling, I'm sure. As a total conservative, I heard the so-con voice.

When I started this journey, Giuliani was at the top of my list. I wanted a social conservative, but was willing to take Giuliani's reassurances. As so-cons protested, I questioned, reconsidered, and ultimately downgraded Giuliani. By December, Giuliani was fourth on my list of the top 5.

After eating Giuliani alive, the so-cons decided they wanted more. Needed more. And in the ultimate act of revenge, they have rejected two unity candidates in favor of Huckabee.

I predict a Democratic win.

It all depends on whether the evangelicals come to their senses in time to save the party. New Hampshire won't be a good indicator, but South Carolina might.

Besides, coming from a Missourian, Iowans have always had a little bit of a thing for populists. I didn't think that they would go this far, though. They've proven to me tonight that they do not deserve their first-in-the-nation status. How 36% of a party could reject two or even three legs of the conservative movement for one (and one who has only run a Christian campaign) is beyond me. I wish people would realize that Reagan, Bush(W), and others were leaders that happened to be Christians. Huckabee is a Christian who happens to be a leader (and a very poor one at that).

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

I guess I should revise that. If Alexham were speaking for all the Iowans who voted Huckabee, and if those Iowans spoke for all the other so-cons in the nation, I would say we're already lost.

As it is, what I'm really seeing is a brokered convention. And the good news is that Huckabee is the one with no chance in a brokered convention.

Huckabee is running as the anti-establishment candidate. The thing is, he's not the only one. I would say Romney and Fred, to certain extents, are very anti-establishment.

What needs to be drilled is that Huckabee is not anti-establishment. He's anti-conservative. He's only anti-establishment because the establishment would like to see a conservative candidate, and Huckabee realizes that he doesn't have the track record to meet that requirement. He's angered about it, and fighting against it.

The establishment didn't really start to go against him until he angered Rush, though. Rush was on the sidelines until Huckabee took him on. That's when he started giving his anti-endorsements.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

... Giuliani has got a lot of problems, but being "shot in the leg" by socons wasn't one of them. It was more like he was shot in the leg by Bernard Kerik, his son who'd rather play golf than help him campaign, and his daughter who won't stop parading her political affection for Barack Obama. [1] Sorry, Rudy has his own issues, and right now they've got little or nothing to do with socons.

Furthermore, if you're willing to give up on the GOP if it nominates Huckabee I question your loyalty to the party. I would have backed Rudy to the hilt if he had won the nomination, even despite his many scandals and personal defects. I still will if he somehow pulls out a win. The same goes for McCain, Thompson, Romney ... or anybody but Ron Paul. Party loyalty isn't about only supporting the party if you get your way.

[1] http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/a_giuliani_...

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

I must disagree, to a point. I agree his personal problems have definitely hurt him, a lot of people left Rudy because evangelicals declared they would vote third party if he was nominated. Not wanting to alienate them, many began looking for someone who could better appeal to everyone. However, tonight social conservatives showed us that while they are unwilling to compromise on their favorite issues, they expect EVERYONE ELSE to do so to win.

>>>tonight social conservatives showed us that while they are unwilling to compromise on their favorite issues, they expect EVERYONE ELSE to do so to win.<<<

Look pal, voting for one's candidate (which is what happened tonight) does not imply that they are "unwilling to compromise" or that they expect "EVERYONE ELSE" to do anything. Get a grip. If Rudy had won, do you think that would imply that the DefCons were "unwilling to compromise?" Sheesh.

I'm a staunch pro-life social conservative and I also detest Huckabee. But I'm also capable of using a bit of logic, and yours is deeply flawed.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

And they have played some part in my decision.

Furthermore, if you're willing to give up on the GOP if it nominates Huckabee I question your loyalty to the party.

I'm a loyal conservative. The party only has my loyalty if it remains conservative.

First off, sincere congrats to your guy on a thorough and comprehensive win. Well done, Huck. Well done indeed.

Second, thanks to you - this was a great piece. And I can only guess that you must have had to fight pretty hard against the urge to do a little "end zone dancing" - I don't think anyone would begrudge you. On a night when you are certainly entitled to a little gloating, I thought this was very balanced, nicely done. Thanks again.

On some individual points...

... Governor Huckabee's win demonstrates that grass-roots conservatives have flatly rejected the candidacy of Mitt Romney.

Well, grassroots conservatives in Iowa at least - clearly. Cannot argue with that. How this translates nationally is anyone's guess, but I think in general you may be more right than wrong. My guy is most certainly up to his eyeballs in doo-doo after this one - be interesting to see how he recovers.

My hope? He fires the dopes who convinced him that "going negative" was the right thing to do and replaces them with new dopes who will convince him to "stay positive". Alas, I don't think that's the route he's going to choose.

... Governor Huckabee desperately needs to reach out to FisCons and DefCons immediately if he stands any chance of winning the nomination and/or presidency.

I agree completely and I for one am very interested to see if and how Huck tries to square these circles. But let's be honest (as you are up top), he has a fair queue of his own recent past statements to overcome on this regard. I personally think the NatSec will be easier to overcome (bring a few advisors on board and stop talking about putting boots on the ground in Pakistan), but I am and remain very, very skeptical that he's not Huey Long reincarnate vis-a-vis fiscal issues.

So, let's see how he does.

Finally...

... the hostility currently being leveled at Huckabee by many Republicans needs to be dialed down a few notches.

Well, true - but then again the same thing could just as easily be said about the "astroturfer in chief", right?

Again, most sincere congratulations.

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

...he has taken an antagonistic approach with them. He calls them names or refers to them as "fat cats". Huck winning primaries will view that as a vindication of his strategy - that is "we don't need these elitist fat cat fiscal conservatives to win".

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

...has Huck winning by cornering the socon vote, with everyone else splitting the other 65% of the party. This could conceivable give Huck the nomination without having to reach out to anyone.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

... I'm willing to suspend disbelief for a time to give Governor LongHuckabee the opportunity to convince me that he's not a pro-life John Edwards.

And if he doesn't and is unwilling to do that? Well, as Alex said, he deserves to (and will) lose.

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

Loved that one, thanks for the chuckle!

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

---Thomas Paine---

Is that it doesn't even matter if he tries to reach out because he has a record of dishonesty, especially when it comes to fiscal matters. I have zero trust in the man. He can promise me whatever I want, but those promises will have less weight than if Bill Clinton was making them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I am a "So-Con" & a "Fi-Con" (if we must have labels) and I never supported Huckabee

Scheech!

Joanie
RV Wanna-be
Maddie the Wonderdog
"apackof2, coming to a town near you!"

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22

Nick Haynes got it exactly right.He's enjoying a surge because lack of scrutiny by the MSM.That's what's goin' on here.Their giving him a free ride hoping the ignorant masses swallow their crap.

If you think that conservatives will vote for Mike Huckabee or John McCain because, "Hey, at least they are better than Clinton or Obama," think again.

Conservatives are tired of hearing that the Republican party has to give up its interest in lower taxes and opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants in order to win the hearts and minds of Americans.

I think that Americans don't like the high taxes that Huckabee stands for, the opposition to tax cuts that McCain stands for, the in-state tuition that Huckabee supported and the amnesty for illegal immigrants that McCain proposed.

Sure, social conservatives might be willing to vote for Huckabee in November because he attends the same church as they do. But many die hard conservatives beleive that conservatism requires more than saying "I'm a Christian leader and we must raise you taxes again." Conservative support and appreciate military service. But conservatives aren't going to support a so-called Republican who is closer in viewpoint to the New York Times editorial page than a conservative radio talk show host.

If you think that conservatives will just vote for the lesser of two evils in Huckabee or McCain, you are wrong. And you will find out come November.

Can you say, "President Obama?"

Everyone here knows that I cannot stand John McCain, and this Huck guy is running on one thing that will not be enough to win in November. However, I will say that if it's Huck on the top of the ticket vs. the Dems, I will reluctantly vote for him. If it's McCain, then I will not vote for any Pres. candidate.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

Huckabee signed a NO TAX PLEDGE. You know....IN WRITING. The guy was governor of a state with a balanced-budget amendment. Heck, if the federal government had one, Republicans would have to raise taxes too, since noone seems to know how to realistically cut spending. I for one, am very happy with the results of today's election. I think Mitt Romney's "contrast" ads made him the only negative candidate in the field, and considering he is the most plastic guy in the field who obviously can't connect with the hearts and minds of voters, I hope that McCain trounces him in New Hampshire and he folds his tent. Congrats to Governor Huckabee. Now PLEASE reach out to fiscal and defense conservatives and show you are not just a one-trick pony!!

....I think he will raise taxes for a couple of reasons.

#1 He has a track record

#2 He is an economic "progressive", therefore he will not be able to help it. He will insist it is "for the children" and liberals progressives will cheer.

footnote: signing a pledge means nothing to a progressive who is "trying to help the disadvantaged". You should have watched him on Leno talk about being able to help the less fortunate. He said it like a true liberal progressive.

Have you not payed attention when Democrats run the taxes playbook? The MSM will cheer him for being courageous and standing up to the mean conservatives and give him cover.

I do not have a good feeling about this but that is just my opinion.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Bush's "no tax pledge" wasn't in writing, but it sure was recorded for posterity on TV, radio, etc. The Huckster's "NO TAX PLEDGE" isn't worth the paper it's written on.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

Now PLEASE reach out to fiscal and defense conservatives and show you are not just a one-trick pony!!

Reaching out is what Romney has done. It is the single point on which he has been attacked mercilessly.

Romney, possibly the most ethical and honorable man in the race - a guy who really understands what it means to love thy neighbor - has had buckets of mud thrown in his face, partly by the very people he reached out to. Classy.

Romney fought for so-con principles as Governor, before the race ever began. He has clearly and powerfully staked his fortune in the so-con camp in this race. Now Huckabee is going to flip mid-race on fiscal, defense, and immigration issues and get a warm reception? After his populist rhetoric as recent as Iowa?

But name dropping foreign policy advisers that actually are not advising him (Bolton) or whose advice he isn't following (Gaffney) isnt the trick to help the Huck pony.

And how can you claim Mitt was the only negative candidate in the field after that ad that won't be shown actually was shown? At best, Huck is just more sly at being negative than the other candidates. Then again, criticizing his record is negative? Perhaps you and he should consider that's because he has such a negative record.

"Third, Governor Huckabee desperately needs to reach out to FisCons and DefCons immediately if he stands any chance of winning the nomination and/or presidency. The brutal truth, Huckfans, is that there are many legitimate criticisms of our boy regarding his fidelity to fiscal conservatism and preparedness to handle complex national security issues."

I agree and it needs to be real!

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

BTWW, if he keeps that clod Rollins around he will tick off everybody.

I'm extremely glad that Huckabee won Iowa. Because it takes Fred Thompson one step closer to the nomination.

You're scratching your head going, "How d'you figure?"

Third, Governor Huckabee desperately needs to reach out to FisCons and DefCons immediately if he stands any chance of winning the nomination and/or presidency. The brutal truth, Huckfans, is that there are many legitimate criticisms of our boy regarding his fidelity to fiscal conservatism and preparedness to handle complex national security issues. He needs to deal with these concerns in a way that shows his skeptics within he party that he is ready to be the nominee of the entire party, not just SoCons.

Thinking that this would work is about as likely as thinking that Rudy could win the SoCons over by imediately 'reaching out' to them to show his skeptics within the party that he is ready to be the nominee of the entire party, not just the neoCons.

Will. Never. Happen.

Huckabee is unacceptable to the FisCons and NeoCons. Romney is apparently unpalatable to a large block of SoCons. Rudy is unacceptable to most SoCons, and a few FisCons. McCain is unacceptable to allCons. Paul is unacceptable to saneCons.

And every conservative has FDT as their first or second choice. He is the compromise candidate. If conventions still meant something, he would emerge as the nominee after backroom politicking by the party bosses; as things stand, we have to wait for the primary voters to wake up to this reality.

We'll see what happens to the fundraising. As I see it, the smart operators should be putting money into the Thompson campaign. Huckabee will fracture the party, and is unelectable in the general election. Romney by coming in second with all of his money and all of his organization was dealt a serious blow.

If I'm wrong, then Huckabee should start to raise serious money. If he doesn't... then I'm feeling good about Thompson.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

Romney is apparently unpalatable to a large block of SoCons.

You cannot conclude that from the Iowa results. If the Iowans had truly wanted a full-spectrum conservative candidate, but found Romney's so-con cred to be a stumbling block, we would have seen a Thompson win, or at least second place. No, I think Alexham got it right, at least for Iowa. They wanted no compromise.

And every conservative has FDT as their first or second choice.

I think McCain is the most common second choice. He's probably the biggest winner from the Iowa fallout.

How can a guy that's so hated by so many conservatives by considered the "second choice?"

Last time someone did a big poll that I remember, McCain had the most second place votes.

I don't remember that. Seems like McCain has been stuck in 3rd place on every poll I've seen on here, with tons of votes for Mitt and Fred putting them in the #1 and #2 slots.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Here is the link to the poll you requested.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/wubbies_world/2007/dec/31/red_state_commun...

P.S. Mitt is a very very weak second, and McCain is a weak third.

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

---Thomas Paine---

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

I suppose I could have addressed this to any Fred supporter really, but what the heck...

Uh, is there any result that could have come out of Iowa tonight that would not have been good news for Fred?

Because I'm thinking that after setting-up housekeeping in Iowa the last month beating Mr. No-Ethanol-Subsidies-For-You by a couple hundred votes for a well-off-the-pace 3rd place is a bit of a let-down. I know I'm disappointed in that finish by Thompson. But then again, Fred isn't my first choice so I'm left to wonder what I'm missing.

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

And it was a strategic choice he had to make. He started late in an early race and came out just behind a guy who had been campaigning there since the patriarchs walked the earth.
______________________________
"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

Good luck to his campaign trying to match that with expectations.

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

For having been living there for only a month he did a pretty good job. All those other guys have been living there off and on for almost a year.

Everyone needs to not sweat this Huckabee thing. He won by pandering. Enough info has come out of this to show who he really is. The rest of the candidates need to stick with issues and what they think is important. Being a conservative will when out in the primaries. It always does.

Off to the next primary! Man this is fun!!!!!

If he had come in a distant fourth -- say around 8% of the vote or so -- then yes, that would have been bad news.

If Romney had won the thing running away, that would have been bad news for Thompson.

If McCain had somehow pulled out a win, that would have been bad news for Thompson.

The way I see it, there are two candidates that are so polarizing that I can't think of a way that they would get the nomination without tearing the fragile coalition to pieces: Huckabee is one, Ron Paul is the other.

In a scenario like that... I think it's entirely possible that the powers that be -- especially the money people in the GOP establishment -- throw their weight behind Thompson as the compromise candidate.

He's the B+ candidate on just about everyone's slate, no matter who your #1 horse is.

So for Huckabee to win Iowa, thereby diminishing Romney's chances, is a positive for Fred.

I could be very wrong; the fundraising over the next week or so will show if I am or not.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

Actually expected nothing less from you, Sophist. (smile)

Just to understand - I would be perfectly happy with seeing Fred as the nominee. I'm just more than a little tired of watching RedState become FredState - where every move, result, twist, turn, burp, fart, etc. accrues to FRED.

Indeed, we'll see.

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

...under the bus to form an anti-Huckabee coalition. Who will candidate be?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

The problem is that virtually every candidate has their "I'll commit hari-kari before I vote for him" opponents. That's why we've had two or three "who would you NOT vote for" diaries here. There doesn't seem to be a universally-acceptable "second choice."


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

but honestly, I'm OK with Romney also. I'd even vote for McCain with my nose held. I might even be persuaded (at gunpoint) to vote for Giuliani, but I think that train's left the station now...so McCain, Romney and Thompson appear to be the three to choose from. Fred's the one with the lowest "stink factor" - the only thing anyone here's been able to pin on him is that he "waited too long" and/or he is a "poor campaigner". Virtually no one has been able to come up with any legitimate issues with the guy's record and policy positions.

But enough threadjacking. Someone needs to do a diary to strategize how to come up with a consensus choice and how to put a stop to the Huckinsanity.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

This might just be the Primary election that gets decided at the Convention... Interesting posibility...

since before the first debates. That's something that's never happened in my lifetime but might be good for us now.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

______________________________
"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

come 30 January. It will be invaluable to science :)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

You do realize that a brokered convention will break the party don't you? If we have a brokered convention, I believe there is a chance that the Republican Party will fracture and social conservatives will leave and return to the Democrat Party (Iowans proved tonight that is where they belong anyway) with the rest of the conservative movement left with a broken and shrunken Republican Party.

They are going to be lured away by the abortion-on-demand party? No way. There's nothing in the Democrat party for SoCons, FisCons, or any other kind of Con.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Huckabee's fundraising ticker went up about $150,000 today...

The Democrats are loving this.

I'm afraid we're looking at an electoral catastrophe in '08. Can Huck win a single state outside the south?

Maybe the other candidates will gradually start dropping out and forming an anti-Huckabee firewall... That's our only hope.

This is just great! We will get a choice between left and lefter, all because of the supposed "sensibilities" of the wonderful peoplw of Iowa. wahh wahh..don't like COMPARATIVE ADS?..just wait until the dems get ahold of th HUCK..and his closet. Yes, he has sinned! Oh my God...in the biblicle way too. Just wait until the dems get ahold of that!

The Sophist says:"Paul is unacceptable to saneCons."

LOL HaHaHaHa

A demagogic, identity-politics-using populist has won Iowa. If he isn't stopped soon, we're in trouble.

Conservative Compendium

poor choice of phrase, IMO.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

as I noted supra, I used that word simply as a means of explaining that SoCons still have a voice in the party. Just go back and read some of the posts here when Rudy was riding high in the polls, and you'll understand what I am talking about.

I also wanted to do a bit of a pop-culture reference to one of my favorite movies back when I was a youngster. :)
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

It's all about life issues for a good many of us, first and foremost. I simply will not vote for a candidate if they're soft on life. Period.

"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson

Of all the GOP candidates, only one could be considered "pro-choice." Huckabee ain't the only game in town.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

I've been fighting this uphill battle for a few weeks now with many of the SoCons that keep telling me that Huckabee is the only one that isn't "soft" on the culture of life.

He also has stated his children being born made his realize that life DOES begin at conception

Joanie
RV Wanna-be
Maddie the Wonderdog
"apackof2, coming to a town near you!"

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22

Why don't you try dealing with the rest of us on some issues? The Conservative movement is more than happy to embrace you and defend you from the secularists in society, and in fact, have done so for at least thirty years. You are apart of the Conservative movement so try to act like it by being a team player.

First: You guys need to understand that the only thing a President can do to influence Roe v. Wade is to appoint Federal judges which means you are going to have to embrace Federalism--something that seems to tick you off about Fred.

Second: I do not believe that the SoCons want to establish a theocracy. (I made this argument to my uncle ealier this evening.) But this post on this site really makes it hard for me to believe that you don't want a theocracy. Let me put it to you in these terms: WE CANNOT CREATE A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE MUSLIMS!! Now, don't take that as me saying that American Christians are the same as Islamo-nutcases. The point of that statement is we cannot and should not embrace a political philosophy that we are at war with in the Middle East.

Third: After some of the policies pushed through by President Bush, what more do you want? We have the faith based initiative. We have replaced two Supreme Court Justices with Federalist jurists--read point number one. Despite what it may look like on television, our culture is actually making a turn for the better when you look at drug use among teens, teen pregnancy, and the divorce rate. So what in the world do you have to claim a right for vengnece over?

Just think of this: If you guys want anything, your best bet is to deal with the other Conservatives in the movement not Democrats.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

And short of the "deal with us on culture of life issues" and the Huckster needing to reconcile with FisCons and DefCons, there really wasn't much there there. I was mainly commenting on the culture of life comment and I have laid it out for you. If you want to win the battle with the Liberals over the culture of life issue, you are going to have to embrace Federalism. I think since Reagan, FisCons and DefCons have been rather accomidating to you SoCons in fitting your concerns in with governing, hell, I might even argue that the FisCons and DefCons issues have taken a back seat to the SoCons, but I won't. So, again, I ask you to think about maybe being a little bit more friendly to the other Conservatives out there that you need in order to win. If you run on God alone, you all but guaranteeing a Democrat President.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

______________________________
"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

Slavery could have been solved under federalism just the same way that any of these other issues can be. It may have kept the straw from breaking the camels back re: the Civil War (not the only issue. The big issue was actually states rights. The south did not feel that they should be forced to do so many things by the federal gov't under the framework of our limited government constitution)

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

_you are arguing against our form of government. I say to you sir, "good luck with that argument".

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

BTW, I've been here for a few months now. I keep seeing people throw the short hand n/t around. I cannot for the life of me figure out what the heck it means. Someone help!

know there is no need to click on the post.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Response much appreciated.

I considered the irony of using the n/t in the response, but this late at night it heart my brain too much (esp after reading some of the nonsense I've seen thrown around here tonight)

Should we have a states rights view on murder ? Whatever happened to equal protection ? Allowing babies to be murdered is a clear violation of the constitution.
______________________________
"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

Murder is a state crime. Define abortion as murder in a state and then it becomes punishable under state laws. There is no need for the federal gov't to double persue cases when the state is perfectly capable of enforcing its own laws.

murder is a state crime, unless done on a federal institution or for some other reason it falls under federal jurisdiction. Some states can kill you for murder, others can not do such a thing. I think some people have a basic misunderstanding of what federalism means. BTW, federalism is not a political theory, it is our form of government, enshrined in the Constitution.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Declaration of independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Preamble to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article three provides that no citizen shall be deprived of life or liberty without Trial by Jury.

This is our form of government. Roe V Wade in effect deprives Americans of the rights of citizenship much the way Dred scott did.
______________________________
"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 give me the percentage of Reps and Senators who are willing to sponsor and vote for an ammendment detailing the fallicy in Roe v. Wade? If there is a majority/super majority there, tell me with a straight face that the Supreme Court will not over rule this bill with a 5-4 vote? If it is an amendment issue, tell me that 3/4 of the states are going to ratify this amendment. Protecting children in the womb is going to have to be a two prong approach: first you have to appoint the justices and second you have to reach the minds of the American people. However you slice it, it is going to come down a Federalist approach.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I am suggesting the federalism has its limits, and that some issues are important enough that they need to be dealt with at the federal level vis-a-vis a constitutionl amendment, or through a reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court.

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Where do we draw the line on what issues are important enough to be decided by the federal govt. This same line of logic is being used by the liberals to support their push for big government programs that the states "can't possibly do"

Sorry, but we need to take some time to realize that the Constitution was a wonderfully thought out document. It is a document that places hancuffs on our federal government and placed the majority of the power in the states hands. The theory is that the state governments are much more highly sensitive the will of the people of its state.

at the point where there is a need to recognize the inherent dignity of every human being from conception until natural death.

If you want to worship at the altar of federalism, then have at it. I care far more about protecting the most vulnerable members of our society from being slaughtered. A society that is unwilling to defend the defenseless is not one that is worth preserving.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

I care far more about protecting the most vulnerable members of our society from being slaughtered. A society that is unwilling to defend the defenseless is not one that is worth preserving.

We are on the same side of the abortion issue. We just philosophically believe that there are two different ways to go about ending the "holocaust" of abortion. I very firmly believe that under the framework of our constitution that each state must make up its mind in respect to this issue. You, on the other hand, feel that a national effort needs to be made. We are only arguing about strategy, not the goal.

worship at the altar of federalism

Sigh, I could easily say the same about your worshiping at the altar of the HLA. Please, no more demagogery (sp?..to lazy to look up this late at night)

We already understand that there are unalienable rights that are provided all Americans.
______________________________
"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

Actually, the Civil War, when you get right down to it, was about economics.

It seems to me that each different history class I took in school had a different philosophy on why the civil war started. You would think that we could get our own history right.

I've had a similar experience but I think that economics was at the very heart of it. You had a wealthy ruling class who did not want to have to pay for labor. Very anti-Capitalist to be sure.

That is the Beard Thesis. It is only one of about six, or seven major theories as to the causation of the Civil War.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us

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

---Thomas Paine---

Are you seriously wanting to go to this? Federalism had nothing to do with slavery, per se. Compromise in creating the country did. Compromise in keeping the country unified was the second cause for the extended use of slavery. If that is all you have and you are a Huck supporter, then maybe Libs are correct in what they say about you SoCons being dense and very one deminsional when it comes to intelligence. And yeah, did just personally attack you.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

you bet, we socon's 'er prity stoopid, and we rilly knead halp frum peeple lyke u to halp us figger thangs out.

Let's try dissecting just one of your paragraphs:

"I do not believe that the SoCons want to establish a theocracy."

Good, because they don't.

"(I made this argument to my uncle ealier this evening.)"

Glad to hear, family values and all that.

"But this post on this site really makes it hard for me to believe that you don't want a theocracy."

So do you or don't you believe SoCons want a theocracy?

"Let me put it to you in these terms: WE CANNOT CREATE A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE MUSLIMS!!"

And I totally agree with you. So does every SoCon in America. (Unless we're talking about those few Muslim countries which are actually liberal democracies.) BTW, did your caps key get stuck or something?

"Now, don't take that as me saying that American Christians are the same as Islamo-nutcases."

OK, glad to hear you understand the distinction.

"The point of that statement is we cannot and should not embrace a political philosophy that we are at war with in the Middle East."

Ummm ... now I really am confused. What you're saying is that evangelicals are not "Islamo-nutcases," but they do support the same system of government and have the same political philosophy as those Islamo-nutcases. Do I have that right?

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

I like your humor, but you failed to see the point. The writer of the main post said that the rest of the Conservative movement has to deal with the SoCons, so I asked simply what do they want? Since Reagan, the FisCons and DefCons have been more than acomodating to the SoCons, yet here this guy is saying that a Huck win is the SoCons way of saying you have to deal with us. Great, but tell me--especially with the current administration--where the rest of the movement hasn't dealt with you guys. You have the faith based initiative, you have two justices on the Supreme Court who just upheld a ban on partial birth abortion not too long ago and you had a very serious supporter in the marriage amendment with President Bush. So, let me ask--and I maintain that you guys don't want a theocracy--what in the hell more do you want? We have dealt with you in more ways than can be counted. How about you guys give it a try and deal with us on somethings, first and foremost, winning this thing with more than God and a Fair Tax.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

Our best way of winning in the White House is following McCain.

Fiscally he can convince the FisCons.

We know he has the Foreign Policy Chops.

Finally, he is strongly pro-life.

Thompson should get out and get behind McCain.

We need to rally around McCain to ensure Romney loses. All three legs of the stool can support McCain, while grabbing independents to beat a strong Obama or Clinton.

You could easily exchange Thompson for McCain in the above post and then ask McCain to get out and endorse Fred. And I think you may overestimate the part of the stool that is the Defense Con. Yes, his experience is huge, but this part of the coalition doesn't like his statements about torture and his positions supporting amnesty. These two things would have to go to Fred. He is absolutely against amnesty and I honestly can't remember if he has any position on the torture issue.

One thing many people miss is that the three stools (or I would argue four (law and order types) are not monolithic. Many of the Socons are also strong Defcons and/or Fiscons. Fred is great but has yet to prove to anyone who doesn't love him that he has the fire in his belly to get it done.

Why would anyone back McCain so that Romney loses? I'm sorry, Romney gets economics. McCain clearly does not, as his repeated repudiation of the tax cuts shows.

As for foreign policy and security issues, he continued to cram the amnesty garbage down our throats while we were screaming at the top of our lungs to shut it down.

Sorry, Romney or Thompson. I'm not settling for a backstabbing McCain unless I absolutely have to.

Romney is the most conservative and capable member of the bunch. Thompson perhaps the most conservative but not an amazing campaigner. Why should Thompson back out? He's the one who made inroad, anyway.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

I would vote for McCain if it came to that, but my heart wouldn't be in it. Besides I think Thompson would swing more Democrats and undecideds than McCain...

With talk about how the tax cuts were bad and how they were too tilted towards the rich? Good luck with that. The only guy who is worse than McCain is Huck.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Why don't these people just vote for Hillary?

What mental asylum did the democrats get this guy from? He has got to be a decoy in the pond. Maybe Huckabee is too.
This is starting to make a good conspiracy theory.

______________________________
"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

Ron Paul Supporters
Why don't these people just vote for Hillary?

You have GOT to be kidding me. FYI, for most of the Paultards, Fred is their second choice. You know Fred - the only other true (small government) conservative running.

What on Earth makes you think any of them would vote for that socialist cow Hillary? Have you just completely lost your mind?

It's just starting. There's a long way to go and this is going to be a junk yard dog type of fight. None of the big five took a fatal blow tonight. I predicted a third for Thompson and so it appears to be. South Carolina will give us a clearer picture. This electon is like none i've seen. Don't lose hope. Just do what you can and keep the faith....

How can anyone support Huckabee. He is a joke of a candidate. He never answers any question seriously and hides behind humor. (I will give him credit for being funny). He is basically a big government Democrat, except that he is a pastor.

He is a the epitome of the "wolf in a sheep's clothing."

Voter ignorance is the only reason for this guy winning.

Huckabee fights against them both. Despite being a "big government democrat." I am not even a Huck supporter (I like Fred & McCain) but this "Huckabee is not a conservative" BS has to be put to sleep.

Guns don't kill people, abortions kill people.

When he was begging for an income tax "surcharge" on the floor of the general assembly. If he is such a foe of the income tax, maybe he should have fought against it in AR. Zero credibility.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And McCain 0 on immigration and Fred 0 on tort reform?

Why should social conservatives be forced to accept "conversions" from fiscal conservatives while fiscal conservatives reject similar conversions to their cause?

Guns don't kill people, abortions kill people.

Romney's conversion was before the race. He fought for so-con principles as Governor. Huckabee, in this very race, campaigning in Iowa, has turned up his populist rhetoric.

Huckabots have been so busy smearing Romney for his conversion, they never realized the trap they were setting for themselves. Even if you don't accept Romney's conversion, he clearly staked his position deep in the so-con camp for the race. If that isn't enough, how can Huckabee, mid-race, possibly switch on fiscal issues? How can he backtrack on the mess he has made on defense issues? How can he clear up his immigration record?

That's why Huckabee is doomed. All he has accomplished is to muddy Romney's path to the nomination. He has probably increased Giuliani's chances in the process.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

If you want to make Romney's conversion on abortion equivalent to Huckabee's theoretical conversion on fiscal issues, he'd have to have been directly involved in executing abortions, maybe by running abortion clinics, for a decade before he decided to seek the nomination. Then he'd have to go in to the race as pro-choice, then when called on it, he would just lie and say he didn't really own those abortion clinics, even knowing it was easy enough to disprove that lie. Then repeat that lie a few times. Then call people names when they bring it up. Then eventually "reach out" to the pro-lifers very late in the game. How's that for credibility?

As for immigration and tort reform, they are great issues but they don't approach the importance of taxes and spending... so they are not comparable.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

He is pro-life which is a great thing and he likes the Fair Tax. What else do you have? Has he said anything about reducing the size of the Federal government? (And to head off the no-one-else-has comment, I didn't say that they are Conservative either. I am merely saying that Huck is not.) There is much more to Conservatism than abortion and taxes. I think the biggest component to Conservatism is limited government and you tell me if Huck is going to do anything to limit the size of the Federal gov.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

That isn't helpful when debating either candidates or policies. Hundred's of thousands of Republican voters already support this "joke of a candidate". You may not like him but there is no reason to include vitriol with your whine.

However the sad part is no one remembers that words once written can't be taken back. I continue to support Huck, he is flawed but so is everyone else and the simple truth is I have chosen his flaws over those of others.

You are also 100% right regarding Huck's need to reach out to those whose top priority is Fiscal Conservatism and of course he needs to be genuine; however many of those who style themselves FisCons will likely continue to refuse to believe him.

however many of those who style themselves FisCons will likely continue to refuse to believe him

He will have to first invent a time machine and undo a lot of what he did in AR and a lot of what he said in the campaign if he wants FisCons to believe him. Reaching out is pointless when you have as little credibility as Huckabee.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I consider myself a true Conservative republican - Socially, fiscally, and on defensive issues.

The huckster is no more conservative that slick willy ever was. I fact on the social issues there is really no difference between him, Obama, and Mrs. Bill Clinton.

All the Republican candidates are seriously flawed and there isn't a single one the true base can support.

Hukster - liberal on social and fiscal issues. Wrong and ignorant on foreign policy issues.
Romney - liberal on social issues
Rudy - again liberal especially on gun rights and immigration
McCain - Worked with Kennedy on the immigration disaster and criticized the war way too often
Ron Paul - Wrong on the war.
Fred - just blah all over

It really doesn't matter who the republican nominee is nor who the democratic nominee is. The base isn't going to support any of these bozos and will just stay home.

this really is a bad field of candidates, but it's what we are stuck with. The only candidate I can see bringing the party together is Thompson, but he lacks the charisma and energy to do it.

I will be camped with Rudy until the bitter end, but will support anyone over the dems, even Huckabee.

Huckabee nomination = 25 years of irrelevancy.

All you one issue voters rejoice!

He's already being compared to Carter. That ought to make you feel good.

I don't like abortion but to screw up a whole movement over one issue seeems kind of stupid.

I knew I could count on all the Huckahaters over here at RedState for some good laughs tonight.

Mike Huckabee is more conservative than most of the rest of you, he just happens to think saving the lives of innocent babies and protecting traditional marriage are just as important as fiscal issues.

He's fiscally conservative, he just scares certain people in our party because he actually IS a social conservative, too (he doesn't just pander to them).

Keep spinning everybody. When you come around, we'll welcome you all on the Huckabus (and those of you who won't join can feel free to write-in Flip Romney or Dead Thompson on your ballots).

Mike will energize the base (that's the conservatives out there in the Heartland...even if it's not you guys), and he'll attract so many Dems and Independents that we may not need the Rush Limbaughs of the world.

Go Mike!

(By the way, if I get banned for this post for some reason, God Bless!)

http://forum.hucksarmy.com/

"Thank god for the fools. For it there weren't any, I could never get ahead."

Author unknown.

How you could just change a few words here and there and easily turn this into a Ronulan post.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

... it's posts like this that make many of us want to tell you all to go do something anatomically impossible to yourselves.

Just saying.

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

He's fiscally conservative, he just scares certain people in our party because he actually IS a social conservative, too (he doesn't just pander to them).

It's really getting tiring responding to all of the Huckabee supporters who forget that he is not the only socially conservative candidate. Please do us all a favor and research the other candidates before you claim that they all pander.

For example, Fred Thompson has received the National Right to Life endorsement. Seems to me that is pretty socially conservative. Stop right there: Don't pull the HLA and FMA bull. HLA and FMA are means to an end. Stopping abortion is the end. Fred Thompson wants to stop abortion. He just believes that there is a better (and more constitutionally viable) option.

John McCain has been a stallwart supporter of pro-life issues.

I've named two other candidates that are pro-life by record.

Can we now please stop crowning Huck and realize that we don't hate him for being a SoCon.

Mike Huckabee is more conservative than most of the rest of you.

Hmmm. Well, let's see.

Immigration
Standard Redstate Position
Illegal immigration is a continuous crime which needs to be stopped. It is a drain on various aspects of life, and disincentives need to be put in place to help stop the overflowing of illegal aliens across the border.

Huckabee Position
We can't put any disincentives in place because that would harm those who are guilty simply of wanting a better life. Amnesty is wrong, so we will make them go back to their home country for 24 hours and then come back with paperwork in hand.

Taxation
Standard Redstate Position
Taxes need to be set at the lowest possible rate so that revenue isn't harmed, but the economy isn't overtaxed and unproductive. These are the fair earnings of people for their labor, so they need to be treated like normal property as much as possible.

Huckabee Position
Talks a much different game now than at any point during his tenure as governor. Instituted a variety of taxes that increased the burden of Arkansans. Told the Arkansas General Assembly that he would be eternally grateful for whatever tax they decided to institute.

Crime
Standard Redstate Position
Criminals should be kept behind lock and key as both a punishment for the crimes they committed and as a deterrant mechanism for future possible offenders.

Huckabee Position
Presided over more clemencies and pardons than any other governor in Arkansas history.

Don't you get it? This isn't about us hating Huckabee because he is pro-life. For Pete's sake, all of us here agree that the pro-life movement is just as important as fiscal issues.

We are against Huckabee because he represents a combination of the Rockefeller Republicans of the old guard that ran the party before the Reagan revolution, and those who can't quite seem to wrap their head around foreign policy matters. He supports the Fair Tax because it is a buffer for him against his record. His immigration plan is wholly inconsistent with his record as Arkansas's chief executive.

I'm going to steal a line here, but take away his pro-life stance and you have a more moderate John Edwards-the folksy, homespun poor boy made good, who is always preaching populism and class warfare. When did either of those two entities define conservatism?

And, on a final thought, in the conservative movement and conservative world, how can anyone have the equation as Mike Huckabee > Rush Limbaugh? Rush does more for the conservative movement in one monologue than Huckabee did in 10 years as governor.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

5 <nt> by bs


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

Man, you Romneyites just don't know when to quit. At 1:15 AM I don't have the energy to go through all the errors and distortions you've just recited.

I've been telling you guys for two years that all these half-truths and mud-slinging would backfire on you. I said it when you were dissecting McCain, when you were savaging Rudy, and when you were disembowling Thompson. You've acted like a bunch of loud-mouth drunks at a frat-party, and now somebody has knocked you down. Now you have to decide if you're going to shake hands and show some class, or run out of the party and sleep it off. It's your choice.

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

I could support Thompson very easily if Mitt dropped out tonight. McCain or Giuliani would take a little more work. I could even see casting a vote for Hunter or Paul.

But I was refuting the poster above because he said that Huckabee is more conservative than most people here. That is a flat-out stupid thing to say. Huckabee, as governor, showed time and again that he was, at best, a moderate. He talks about the "Club for Greed" and how we need to get back to "Main Street" and start punishing Wall Street. He preaches about how he signed the 'No Tax Pledge'-never mind the fact that Bush 41 showed just how quickly that kind of promise can be turned around.

If people harp on his record, it's because you can discern a lot about a candidate by looking at what they've done in the past. He has consistently shown to be ethically flawed, and willing to play the role of the GOP John Edwards in order to get votes. Furthermore, he is abusing his religion to get people to support him-and that is utterly despicable.

Oh, and doing it early in the morning? That's because I'm a full-time student and full-time worker, and I therefore have to work the evening shift until 11 PM (CST). So, pardon me if my clock is off from yours. My bad.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

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

---Thomas Paine---

he just scares certain people in our party because he actually IS a social conservative

Finally, a well-reasoned Huckabee supporter.

that Huckabee even knows what it means to be conservative and if you think he is conservative you are either ignorant, in denial, or missing a chromosome - however, good show tonight; I guess preaching to the choir worked.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

Why are the so-called "evangelicals" or "so-cons" so determined to force a party schism over Huckabee? Make no mistake--that's what it is. A schism. It's been a long time coming, but here it is. Please back down! Huck is NOT conservative, and he CAN'T win the general. PLEASE! You will never elect anyone ever again without us, and we will never elect anyone again without you. The Republican party is in extremely dire straits right now, and tonight's Iowa results prove it beyond doubt.

Some major wing of the party will stay home (and I believe them) if any of the following candidates becomes our nominee:

Giuliani: pro-lifers stay home
McCain: anti-amnesty people stay home
Romney: anti-Mormon bigots stay home (and there are more of them than we want to admit)
Huckabee: fiscal conservatives and tough foreign policy folks stay home

Fred's the only one who doesn't cause a large Republican voting bloc to stay home. He might be boring, but he has the potential to at least get all of us to the polls.

PLEASE reconsider, Huckafans. PLEASE. Conservatism is more than just opposing abortion and gay marriage. Don't toss out fiscal and security issues, or you won't have the freedom and luxury to worry about the unborn for much longer. How many babies will die when a Dem president backed by a Dem Congress institutes universal health care that guarantees free and easy abortions available at publically-funded clinics on every street corner? Please reconsider.

I agree, I've been fearing this for a few weeks now. If we go to a brokered convention I'm afraid the party may tear itself apart. I am an all around conservative and I would hate to have to choose between differing factions

and will be until NH, "Polls showed more than 8 in 10 of Mike Huckabee’s supporters described themselves as evangelicals."

How is the Huck going to overcome being classified as the "evangelical" candidate going forward? Identity politics will backfire on him big time. I suspect in about 5 days the cheers from the Hucksters will turn to tears as they reflect that it was fun while it lasted.

In states with five or ten per cent evangelical supporters, I wonder how the Huck will do? Let's see if these fantastic followers start opening up their wallets and start pouring in the millions in donations necessary for Huck to compete in the next few states.

My guess is the Huck will fizzle fast. I seriously doubt most Americans will be as gullible as this handful of religious fanatics in Iowa. Frankly I am embarrassed for Iowan’s; their credibility with me is now zero.

First of all, it was a great win for Huckabee. No doubt about that. He not only won, but won by a much larger margin (about nine points) than I thought possible. For those of you Huck-haters out there, I know this is a difficult pill to swallow, but try to remember that Huckabee isn't nearly the second-coming of Bill Clinton you've all been making him out to be.

But for the Huck-fans out there, Alexham makes a good point. Only a full-spectrum conservative can win the nomination and the presidency, and there are legitimate questions as to whether Huck is such a conservative. For my part, I think Huck's weakness on fiscal conservatism is greatly exaggerated. Spending and taxes went up in Arkansas during his tenure, but remember that he faced a legislature completely dominated by the Democrats and a host of problems with Arkansas's infrastructure and educational system that required a heavy injection of new funds.

At the same time, Huck's weakness on foreign policy is not exaggerated, and that matters in this election like never before. The truth is that Huck has absolutely no experience with foreign policy, doesn't seem that interested in it, and what he does say about it seems to betray a decidedly left-ward leaning and impractical tilt (re: his article in Foreign Affairs). [1]

Say, Alexham, weren't you dissecting Huck a week or two ago for the whole Hagee issue? I'm a little bit surprised that you're in his corner. But perhaps I'm missing something.

Speaking of things that surprise me, did anyone catch where Rudy Giuliani finished in Iowa? That would be at 4%, meaning that he finished 6 points behind (gasp!) Ron Paul. [2]

For that matter, did anyone really expect Hillary to finish in third place behind both Breck girl and Barack Hussein Obama? [2] I know that a lot of people seem to think Obama is the better candidate ... but come on, do the Democrats seriously believe that their former mosque-attending, cocaine-snorting, junior Senator with 1 year of practical experience in the Senate is going to win the White House? The Democratic Party may be comparable to organized mass hysteria, but come on people, at some point don't you have to take these things seriously?

And now we come to Mitt Romney. Ah yes, Romneyites, I've been waiting for this for a long time, and now that the day has finally come ... I offer words of consolation. Although your candidate just ended up on the receiving end of a big, fat a**-kicking from the Iowa electorate, the man doing most of the kicking will be taking just five more delegates away from Iowa than your guy. And he's probably going to skip New Hampshire to concentrate on South Carolina (which is the smart play). If you win New Hampshire you're right back in this thing. If you finish second, you can still pull a last stand in Michigan. In other words, you are not dead yet. As bad as things look right now, you're still in better shape than the former front runner (Rudy) who will be taking away exactly zero delegates from Iowa. I know you were expecting me to knife you in the liver, but I hate to kick a man when he's down. Moreover the fact is your guy could still end up being the leader of my party come November.

But in order for that to happen you have to change some things. Frankly, the Romney camp has waged one of the most ruthlessly negative primary campaigns in recent memory. That extends right down from Mitt Romney himself, to his campaign chairmen, his campaign staffers, and the bloggers who've supported him (that means you, my Romneyite friends). It might have been fun for you, but just about everyone else - the Fredheads, the McCainiacs, the Huckabots, and your friendly neighborhood uncommitted voter (me) - is sick of it. You either learn that lesson now, or lose.

One last thought: will the two Ron Paul delegates please tell us if they actually plan to attend the Republican National Convention? If so, will they please promise to leave their Cat Stevens CD's and their copies of Protocols of the Elders of Zion at home? Just asking.

[1] http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87112/michael-d-huckabee/am...
[2] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

At some point social conservatives are going to comprehend that the president has extrodinarily limited ability to affect the social agenda. If Jesus Christ were elected president he could not end abortion or gay rights by means of any authority actually granted him by the constitution. The question is not social conservatism, it is judicial conservatism. The federal judicary is where the social battle is fought. Any candidate who will nominate judicially conservative judges, regardless of his actual opinion on social issues, is the friend of social conservatives. At it is well past time that they figured that out.

I agree that currently the issue of abortion is, for the most part, being fought in the judicial arena. But if you don't think that it matters who sits in the White House when it comes to prolife issues, then you are simply mistaken.

You do understand that the president appoints justices and judges, right? You do understand that the president can veto proabortion/pro-"Culture of Death" legislation, right? I could go on and on, but I hope I've made my point.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

significant abortion legislation is never going to come out of congress for any president to vote on one way or another. Congress simply does not have the courage to tackle such legislation. So that is a non-issue.

similarly, regardless of his stance on abortion, no president is ever going to nominate an "anti-abortion" candidate to the supreme court. Ever. And if he did, congress would toss the selection right out.

However, most of the republican candidates understand the importance of having judicial conservatives on the courts, for reasons that go far beyond abortion.

One way or another, abortion in some form is always going to be legal in this country, and there is nothing anyone can do to change that. Roe v Wade, however, is another matter all together. It was a poorly decided case and will probably not stand up to long term judidical consideration in its current interpretation - if we can keep a conservative court.

Abortion not withstanding, given Huckabee's populist message, I trust him far less to select judicial conservatives to the courts than I do either Romney, Rudy or Fred. I don't believe he is as committed to the principles of Jeffersonian federalism as many of the other candidates are.

"One way or another, abortion in some form is always going to be legal in this country, and there is nothing anyone can do to change that."

We'll just see about that.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Pregnancy is a medical condition, not a political one. There will always have to be some legal means for a doctor to deal with problems that occur during that medical condition.

Can we rid our society of abortion as means of birth control? Yes, and that should be the battle. But an absolutist position on that one topic is one not rooted in the Jeffersonian traditions of our political system.

Evangelicals need to understand that the conservative revolution is not about Jesus, it is about Jeffeson.

So your appeals to his "authority" are falling on deaf ears.

Do as you wish. I will do otherwise.
_________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

I see no difference at all between you and those on the secular left trying to impose their will upon me. You are all trampling upon the political traditions of American society. Thanks for making my mind up for me about Huckabee.

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

So I think I can say this with some authority: I hardly think that the man who penned the Declaration of Independence would leave the fate of child in the womb to judges and doctors. I am quite confident that Jefferson would consider abortion an abomination that needs to end. I also think he would be quite critical of how abortion became a fixture in our culture.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

But the Jeffersonian solution is to defeat, or at least neuter, Roe V Wade and than let the battle be fought out in every state and hamlet as it should have been originally, force our legislators to take a stand on the issue one way or another. Roe V Wade, as with all judicial activism, was an abomination to the principles of Jeffersonian democracy. That battle can be won if fought in the name of Jefferson. If fought in the name of Jesus, it will be lost. Jesus did not sacrifice himself to start a political revolution, but a spiritual one. Abortion is a spritual issue, Roe V Wade is purely a political one.

Just the simple fact that if Thompson wins, it will be pleasure to vote for him, Romney less so but not too bad. If McCain wins the primaries, I would vote for him in Nov, then take a long shower.
If Huckabee wins, I will leave the the ballot blank for President. He is beyond a line I will not cross. A Huckabee nomination will be a win for the dems (they know it), and the collapse of the republican party. I will look for an alterative party that better suits my conservative beliefs.

This next month will chart the future of our nation. We are at another pivotal point in our history similar to the election of FDR in 1932 or Lincoln in 1860.
We live in momentus times. woo-hoo.

PS I am also getting tired of the RP bashing. Although I could never vote for the guy, 80% of what he stands for/says is absolutely right on. The black helicopter/foriegn policy stuff is scary. A different messenger with a resonable forieign policy would garner my (and I suspect many more here) vote.

"Fourth, the hostility currently being leveled at Huckabee by many Republicans needs to be dialed down a few notches."

Summing up what you just said: The socon's bark and bite shepherds Redstate to go on bearing their teeth at Mitt and Rudy but to hasten to cozy up to Huck and McCain.

If we were all sitting around with our shots of bourbon, mine would be hurled somewhere distinctly less pleasant than into my mouth.

Congratulations on victory in this specific battle, but fie on your self-righteousness. I'd propose exactly the opposite toast so neither one of us can claim to be better than the other. Then I'd be very happy to repent and urge that all of us disciplined our emotions.

And with respect to what your man needs; it is, among other things, a Road to Damascus moment with respect to economic libertarianism. Reducing the problem to "reach out to" is living a political life in denial.

To your health!

"If we were all sitting around with our shots of bourbon, mine would be hurled somewhere distinctly less pleasant than into my mouth."

Boy, lotta talk about whiskey around here today. I see what a Huckabee win does to the moral of this site. :P

"Deal with us and our concerns"

Clearly your euphoric state has driven reason from your thought process. "You" do NOT represent so-cons nor do a few evangelicals from Iowa.

You of all people can't claim to speak for any part of this party when you personally advocate that it's your duty to vote for a pro-life dem over a republican squish even though as a party it's the dems that are the party of death!

Life issues are part of our platform and core, not it's entirety the issue by which we begin to exclude those who help us advance our cause overall.

Overall, Mike Huckabee only hurts our party, an ethically challenged pro-lifer who has endlessly proven himself a buffoon is not exactly the person I'd be flaunting the way you are, if you want to think of him as revenge, it's more like Montezumas Revenge.

Mike Huckabee does not represent our party, he is merely pro-life and I will help work toward his defeat, both in the primaries and in the general IF we are somehow tricked into nominating him.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I suspect I do represent a substantial block of SoCons, but we'll know more after South Carolina.

As for my assertion that I would vote for a prolife dem over a proabortion Republican, all I can say is don't put me (and other SoCons) in that position, and I won't have to make that choice. The bottom line is that the GOP is not going to win a presidential election with a proabortion nominee, so those who choose to support such a candidate have no one but themselves to blame when Hillary or Obama enter the White House in 2009.

As for your claim that life issues are not the only issues important to the GOP coalition, I agree. Read my post again. I've said quite clearly that Huck needs to reach out to his skeptics in the party on economic and national-security issues, and if he doesn't make the case to them, then he deserves to lose.

And while you may think Huck hurts the party, I disagree. I think he expands our base in a good way. But hey, if you've made up your mind, then do as you wish. Keep in mind though that if you want our party to maintain control of the White House, you're going to have to tone down the rhetoric. Engaging in name calling isn't going to convince those of us who support Huck to abandon our candidate. I tried to make that point in my post, but some of y'all are apparently Hell bent on acting nasty. Well, have at it. I don't think you're going to like the ultimate outcome.
___________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

"[A]ll I can say is don't put me (and other SoCons) in that position, and I won't have to make that choice. The bottom line is that the GOP is not going to win a presidential election with a proabortion nominee, so those who choose to support such a candidate have no one but themselves to blame when Hillary or Obama enter the White House in 2009."

Alex, answer this honestly, do you think you will have better chance at brokering some sort of deal on abortion with a prolife Dem than a prochoice Rep? How many prolife Dems are running this year? When is the last time a prolife Dem ran for that party's nomination and did not change their position? The only way a pro-abort GOP candidate looses is if shortsighted prolifers like yourself don't vote for them. Then you will definitely be left out in the cold.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

First, the dems are not going to nominate a true-blue prolifer any time soon, so when I say I would vote for a prolife dem over a proabortion Republican in a presidential election, we're dealing with a far-fetched hypo. When I originally made this assertion, I was doing it simply to explain how important "Culture of Life" issues are to me. I think I said I would vote for Bob Casey Sr. (not the son, mind you) over Rudy. And I certainly would, if presented with that choice.

And while I understand your point, please understand where I am coming from. I know for a fact that there are proabortion elements within our party who would love nothing more than to begin the process of watering down, and eventually reversing, the party's abortion plank. These efforts will be made in 2008, and every presidential election cycle thereafter. Sadly, this is a war that also must be waged within our own party.

Now, given the foregoing, can you understand why prolifers would rather lose this election than anoint a proabortion pol as the leader of our party? If not, then I don't know what to say. To be sure, there will be short-term setbacks and risks in sitting out the election (or voting third party), and I would hate to have to do that. But the long-term damage that would be caused to the prolife movement by someone like Rudy being elected is simply too much to risk. The sad thing is that Rudy probably could have prevented some of this by taking the advice of Dan, Ben, and other conservatives, and reaching out to prolifers much more than he did. But he chose not to, and it will almost certainly cost him the nomination and/or election.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

If Culture of Life issues are so important to you, then why Huck? He is not the only genuine prolife Conservative out there. Duncan Hunter is probably the best choice for our Party, but saddly he is polling in the third tier. Well guess what, that is where Huck was before the MSM took it upon themselves to lift him up. (I hope that I do not have to explain why they did that.) There is also Fred Thompson. (Yeah, I know about the lobbying he did for an abortion group in the early 90's. Here's the thing, he was an employee doing his job. I don't believe for a second that he is the same as Romney when it comes to abortion.) There are two great Conservative candidates out there, especially with your issue and you are supporting the one guy who is not going to unite the movement and therefore give the White House to a Party who is not going to give you the time of day.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

if you look in my archives you'll see that I used to be a Fredhead. But his comments on Schiavo and disavowal of the GOP plank on abortion ran me off. I do still like him though, and I agree that he's prolife.

The funny thing is that when I joined Huck's team, he was nothing but a tier-2 candidate. How times have changed since then.

As for leaving Huck, I think I'll pass. But I tell you what, if you can get Rudy's supporters to do what you're suggesting that I do, then we have a deal.

Until then, I'll stay with Huck.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

I was a staunch Rudy supporter who gave up on him reaching the White House when you one-issue abortion voters convinced me that you really and truly would stay home and that you could never, ever bring yourselves to vote for him. I still think Rudy's a good choice, but I left him for Fred because I see that Fred is the only candidate who doesn't run off a significant chunk of the party.

So there you go. A Rudy supporter reluctantly left Rudy because of views like yours. Now you should leave Huck because of views like mine. I'll stay home if Huck's our nominee because he knows JACK about foreign affairs and is a fiscal liberal nanny-stater. Just like you couldn't bring yourself to vote for Giuliani, I can't bring myself to vote for Huck.

Compromise, or we go down together.

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Of what you would consider an adequate "reaching out" gesture to be? I've heard the same thing from more than one Huck supporters, but there's never a set of concrete suggestions that go with it. I think it is impossible for him to do what you suggest, and I don't see him even trying.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Huck can't convince me at this point that anything he says isn't just a blatant lie to make a play for my vote. His record speaks for him. His past, passionate statements about how he believes it is right and good for the State to use large amounts of taxpayer money to impose his values on others speaks for him. His belief in his own status as "chosen by God" speaks for him. His passive-aggressive, wide-eyed innocence while playing dirty, underhanded politics speaks for him. His complete and total embarrassing ignorance of foreign affairs speaks for him.

He can't undo that with a few well-placed smiling lies at this late date. I will not vote for him.

Let me put it another way. Would you consider voting for Rudy if he "reached out" and said he now opposes abortion completely and totally because he understands how important it is to so many in the Republican party? Would you believe him for a second? Or would you feel scorn for a guy who will say anything, even if he clearly doesn't believe it, to pander to you? Anything Huck says at this point that contradicts his record and past statements comes across exactly the same way as a sudden conversion to a pro-life stance would for Rudy. It would be pandering, lying, and unacceptable to most of us.

Just like you pounded it home to the rest of us that you absolutely, positively, would not, could not EVER vote for Rudy, we will apparently have to pound it home to you that the same goes for Huckabee.

Compromise, or we go down together.

The difference is that I don't necessarily accept your characterization of Governor Huckabee's record. I think some of the points you've made are valid, especially when it comes to national-security matters. But I simply don't view him in the same light that you do.

Look, if I could make a deal right now that would remove both Huck and Rudy from the race, I would almost certainly take it. But as it stands, I am sticking with Huck until I know that Rudy's candidacy is all but over.

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Suicide by Huckabee. Sigh. Thanks a lot. See you wandering in the political wilderness for the next 40 years, I guess.

People have clearly started to abandon Rudy. He has trended down, down, down in the national polls. Ron Paul got 250% of his vote total in Iowa. I think Rudy chose a lousy strategy and is in a really lousy position to try to pull out a win. Even though he didn't compete in Iowa, he should have really got more than 4% of the vote. He certainly doesn't have any problem with name recognition.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

when President Huckabee begins nominating judicial liberals to the courts to shore up his progressive base on the left? That is going to make getting rid of abortion even more difficult.

I'm sure he will be happy to veto legislation that he knows will never reach his desk. So he will never actually be required to take a stand on the issue.

If you could give some assurance that would not happen, it might change the minds of those of us who care more about the makeup of the courts than we do abortion as an insolated issue.

Huck's base is the SoCon vote, he cares deeply about "Culture of Life" issues, and you can rest assured that he will appoint originalists to the Supreme Court, as well as to the inferior federal courts.

I think your fear of him appointing judicial liberals borders on being ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Huck without making others up out of wholecloth.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Yeah, he may not appoint pro-abort justices, but what is to say that he won't appoint economic liberals to the bench? And by doing so, he will be putting pro-abort jurists on the bench. He is not going to be able to reconcile his pro-life views with his economically liberal ones.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

I don't trust your assurances. He gives absolutely no evidence of having any strong committment to original intent. And you yourself have validated the observation that you do not either.

I want to know specifically why I should believe otherwise.

If you can vent about pro-abortion republicans, why are my concerns about originalism silly? I fail to see why your concerns are any more valid than are mine.

Methinks you should stick to topics you actually understand.

If you only knew who you were "speaking" with, you wouldn't even think of questioning my originalist credentials. I've done more for the originalist cause, then you will ever dream of doing.

Just end the conversation, o.k.? I don't care for you, and you're not going to convince me of anything. All you've demonstrated with this exchange is that you know very little about the topics you've choosen to discuss.
_______________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Especially by semantics. I'm pretty sure that Jeffersonianism (you know, the guy you don't acknowledge)has some relationship to originalism or whatever you wish to call it.

All I have asked for is some kind of statement that Huckabee is more committed to the principles the country was founded upon then he is to a populist movement with a religious flavor. Why is that so difficult to provide, since you are such a dedicated proponent of the concept and all?

Or using a little search engine called Google . . .

Here you go:

"I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned."

"I applaud the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart forbidding the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. While I am optimistic that we
are turning the tide in favor of life, we still have many battles ahead of us to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and so it is vital that we elect a pro-life President."

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=11

"The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views. We should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it. When discussing faith and politics, we should honor the "candid" in candidate - I have much more respect for an honest atheist than a disingenuous believer."

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9

And here are his views on the Second Amendment:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

And here is a quote from an interview that Huckabee did with Time:

Question: "Other G.O.P. candidates have said they would appoint federal judges "in the mold" of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito. What type of judges would you appoint? —Bill Murphy Salt Lake City, Utah

Huck: "People who believe that the purpose of the judiciary is not to make law but to properly apply it. My own personal hero on the court is Scalia, not least because I duck-hunted with him."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1607158,00.html

Judicial liberal, eh? Oh yeah, he's a real penumbra lover, I tell ya.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Once you get your bad nominee confirmed to the courts, it's a little too late to flip on it. He initial comments about the decision tell us a lot about his judicial philosophy, or lack thereof.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

BTW by zuiko

I haven't seen any evidence yet that he rejects a right to privacy... I know he thinks the rights of the unborn outweigh the right to privacy, but that's not good enough. If you have anything where he attacks Roe (or anything else) on the bogus right to privacy instead of the sanctity of life, I'd like to see that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

to anything I posted above? If Huckabee stands by those positions than he agrees with what I said above and not with you.

My original statement was that social conservatism is best served by paying attention to who is own the courts and not to a given candidate's belief about abortion per se. How could you possibly have a problem with that?

A dedicated social conservative on the issue of abortion is not as important to the over all conservative movement as is one more dedicated to a generic form of judicial conservatism, regardless of his actual social opinions. The abortion debate will not be won until we have a judicially conservative court which can minimize the impact Roe V Wade has on the suppression of local legislative action on that issue. We don't need an amendment to the constitution, all we need is a proper Jeffersonian interpretation of it.

One can support overturning Roe until the ratification of a constitutional amendment.

Sweet Lord, are you always this obtuse?
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

is probably an unnecessary battle the outcome of which is highly unpredictable. We have victory within our grasp now without that. With just another one or two more terms of a trully conservative government, with just two or three more justices such as Roberts and Alito, the battle will have been won for all intents and purposes.

So, I continue to be dubious of a candidate running more as a populist than as a true rock-ribed conservative. There is never going to be legislation passed for any such amendment, Huckabee or no Huckabee. The odds of getting enough federal and state legislators courageous enough to do that is simply too far fetched.

Mitt "I will do more for "Gay" Americans than Teddy Kennedy" Romney and Rudy "My roommate was a "Gay" American when my Wife kicked me out of Gracie Manor" Guiliani?

about the position of all the candidates on this issue. But Huckabee is currently the candidate with the momentum and appears to be far more committed to a populatist agenda than a Jeffersonian one. Thats a deal breaker for me. I'll vote for the candidate who is most committed to a broader conservative commitment to the kind of government we were supposed to have than Huckabee appears to be - if this guy is any example of his position.

I see my "you're a bigot" comment is confirmed. You just don't get it. Maybe a moderator review of your posts is in order.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Are you trying to imply that Rudy is in the closet with that statement you just made? I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

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

First, blam.

Second, something needs to be done. I'm thinking we need to give Tbone and mbecker908 a blamstick for a day.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

then I'll take back every bad thing I ever said about lawyers!

But....."for a day"?

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

I'm thinking we need to give Tbone and mbecker908 a blamstick for a day.

Heh - and you think there will be anyone left at the end of the day???

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

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

I'm frankly much more comfortable with my "IdiotStick". I'm seriously not up the responsibility of a Blam Stick.

OTOH, Franz might find it fun to play with.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

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

---Thomas Paine---

Sell "blamstick for a day" permits. Things could get really interesting around here, and it could generate some serious revenue...


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

I know that I'm new here and don't have much of a history or cred with you all but I don't believe I'd let you down.:)

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service