Redstate

Nope, it's just a tough primary campaign. All primary wounds are diagnosed as fatal ... don't believe it.

MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08

Look at HRC and Obama. It's getting nasty between them. But their differences are all surfacy -- there really isn't much difference between them ideologically. They try to establish differences. But, in the end, they're both about the same.

But the battle lines in the Republican camp are different than that. You have two very distinct ideological camps lining up against one another. And it's not the social moderates vs. the social conservatives. It's the social conservatives vs. the "other" conservatives (and the moderates, but they don't amount to much).

And it's just not that common to hear comments like "I'll never vote for ________, even if it helps Hillary/Obama." Dan Riehl is hardly an apostate conservative. Pat Buchanan says that the GOP would sell its soul to nominate Giuliani.

These are not about slight differences. It's not about somebody who's inexperienced vs. somebody experienced. It's not about whose healthcare plans are most generous. It's not about who has the fastest timetable to get out of Iraq.

There are gulfs between the Huckabee voters and the Giuliani voters. And I really don't think it's going to be one of those things where the loser licks his wounds and jumps in line. I sense something different with this one.

I've been cool on McCain, but I think even he would be a good antidote to this. I think it would be a mistake -- a costly one -- to nominate either Giuliani or Huckabee.

Schisms happen all the time in US politics, and we're at a very great risk of one. The Republican party establishment has been risking one for quite awhile by pushing liberal and (presumably) reformed liberal northeastern candidates.

And now the shoe's on the other foot and they're not enjoying it. But a pro-choice liberal as the nominee would have destroyed the Party for a decade at least. Romney as the nominee wouldn't destroy the party, but I have basically zero hope of him winning.

2004- GWB (Fiscon from the N.E. So lib yep thats the ticket)
2000- GWB
1996- Bob Dole (Another Fiscon from the NE)
1992- GHB Real run of these guys
1988- GHB
1984- Ronald Reagan (well thats about the last time we had candidate really acceptable to Fiscons)

I am sorry but this lovely run of big government republicans is why candidates like RP can get so much more traction than they deserve.

P.S. Your prejudice against people from the N.E. is showing.
______________________________
"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

in which the two guys getting the most establishment support were liberal northeasterners. And yes, I am biased against them. Why? It's simple. Anyone who can get elected in the northeast is either a liberal, in which case I don't want him, or faked being a liberal, in which case I can't trust him, and thus don't want him. If the northeast moves back to the center, that will change things, but as things stand now, nobody who could get elected up there is going to be acceptable to redstate America.

I get amused by people who try to make the claim that these guys are conservative anything. You just don't get elected up there in that case. Did Giuliani cut taxes? Sure. From crushingly high, to slightly lower but still crushingly high. Doesn't make him a conservative, any more than JFK cutting taxes made him one.

Rudy Guiliani Moderate North easterner well theres one

Mitt Romney ? You tell me what he is Originally from Utah, Governor of Mass, All over the place on every issue.

John McCain He's no conservative but if he's a liberal then so is 95% of the party. Also last time I checked AZ was not in the NE

Duncan Hunter Conservative California.

Fred Thompson: Do I really need to ?

Tom Tancredo: Come on

Ron Paul: I'll do us all a favor and just not count him.

So out 6 candidates you have one thats genuinely from the North East and the worst you could say is he is a moderate.

Your Response: Did Guiliani cut taxes, Well yes but not enough, Geez Louise, Thats opposed to a guy who raised them.

______________________________
"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

Logic is not necessarily sufficient.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

The reality is most Midwestern, Northeastern and Western Republicans don't want another "white-male-Southern-Christian" at the top of the ticket. We know what that means in our own back yards. It's not that I have a problem with Republicans from certain parts of the country although you've made clear you put some part of the country off limits. It's that I know the same people that would go near Ken Blackwell with a ballot in Ohio won't go near Mike Huckabee or any another other religious guy from the South.

Can't we step back, look at the mood of the entire country, look at the electoral map and then make some strategic decisions on how we can retain the White House and move the ball forward on conservatism as best we can? That's the decision matrix to use. Maybe that's a Northeastern candidate, maybe it's not. But if it's another white guy from the South, right, wrong or indifferent we may as well kiss pieces of the Midwest and West good-bye the next time around. Not because I won't be there but because we will lose swing voters in droves, more than evangelical turnout could ever dream of making up for.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Huh?

Do you have anything, a poll, an oracle, tea leaves, to support this statement? "another white guy from the South, right, wrong or indifferent we may as well kiss pieces of the Midwest and West good-bye the next time around"?

That must be why Huck (southern) is doing so poorly in Iowa (midwest), right? Them ol' Midwesterners are wisin' up to them southern boys.

If geography selected the candidacy instead of policy, why isn't Romney at the very tip top of the race? After all, he is the most northern candidate. Or McCain, the most western candidate? or...?

Where is our Midwest candidate that should be at the top of the Republican totem pole? Look, I understand the need to make ANY argument to advance your guy, but geography is the very lamest argument advanced so far.

By the way, I am pro-Fred (southern) but anti-Huck (also southern).

Huck is surging in Iowa because of the religious right in Iowa, nothing else.

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

Do you attribute his surge in Florida, Michigan, and the national polls to the religious right too? I'm just saying, if it were just Iowa, I'd agree with you, but it's everywhere. He's appealing to more than just the religious right, imo. I'm a conservative, but I don't fall into the "religious right" category. Huckabee had a lot of appeal for me. I'd like for Thompson to get the nom, but I can't help but losing some hope that it will happen. Other than Thompson, I just don't like my choices.

If you're not a part of the "religious right" - then what exactly is appealing about Huckabee?

His desire to increase funding for and federal regulation of education?
His desire to stick the government's nose in health care to "fix it?"
Maybe his desire to pretend Iran is just like an ornery uncle who you had a spat with over Thanksgiving dinner?
Maybe his support for the dead-in-the-water Fair Tax (which I think is bogus given the few policy specifics he gives, which seem to revolve around using the tax code to encourage/favor certain things - see his health care stuff)?
How about his position on crime? (Assuming you can call feeling sorry for depraved criminals and turning a deaf ear on victims a position).
Or maybe it's his extra "tough" immigration position?

Can someone that supports Huck just be honest that his positions on anything that isn't a social-moral issue are well to the left of the Party? Stop insulting my intelligence with claims that Huck is a conservative and that there's no reason for non-SoCons to oppose him - admit you like him because he's a liberal, or that you like him because the only thing that matters to you is an abortion amendment that has never gotten more than 49 votes in the Senate (and has, more often than not, never gotten voted on). If the latter, than self-identified or not, you are a member of what we regular folk call "the religious right."

Look, Huck is not my top choice. I have serious doubts about him. I'd like to see Thompson get the nomination. To be objective, though, Huckabee is a great communicator. Have you seen the Glenn Beck interview of Huckabee? I watched the entire hour and was impressed. He came across as a federealist w/ Beck. He also comes off as a regular guy -- not stiff or pandering. In fact, Huckabee specifically talked about education being a state issue.

Also for the record, I'm not for the abortion amendment. I am pro-life, but I don't think the amendment is practical. I would be thrilled if Roe V. Wade was overturned and each state decided the issue.

Please don't label me as something I'm not. I admit I have more doubts about Huck as I read posts on here. Still, if you listen to Huck he talks like a conservative. I have heard him say that ideally he'd like the fair tax, but he'd support the flat tax -- anything is better than our current system. He supports the surge, he suported the Bush tax cuts. He has said he can imagine no scenario in which he would raise taxes. He got the endorsement of the founder of the minute men. Until I got on this site, I thought he was conservative across the board (both fiscally and socially). I am disappointed to find out that he may not be.

Again, Fred is who I am supporting. I am hoping he picks up momentum quick!

I agree that we are on the verge of a radical change in the party. If Rudy or Huck gets the nomination, massive changes are likely in store.

Rudy gets the nod, I could easily see a breakaway social conservative movement (which really might look more than a little both in composition and impact to the dixiecrat split with the dems).

Huck gets the nod, a lot of small government types will vote third party (and, as those posts demonstrate, a few will vote dem) rather than allow conservatism to be completely discredited after four years of Huck. The problem is, I think Huck pulls in socially conservative democrats (a mix of union workers and catholic hispanics) and basically makes the small government crowd irrelevant to the republican coalition (I actually think Huck could take the general without our support and redefine the republican party).

Because I can tell you although I will vote form him in Ohio if he's the guy it won't make a difference because he'll end up losing the state as bad as Blackwell if not worse. My opinion on the ground in Ohio for over 15 years, Huck doesn't stand a chance in Ohio.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

...destroy the party.

I've been a Giuliani supporter. And I still think that he'd be our best candidate in what's going to be a tough cycle for us.

I'm throwing my support to Romney now. I like Mitt a lot -- always have. I do think he'll have a rough go of it in the general election.

But I just think the prospect of either Rudy or Huck threatens to drive a wedge between our coalitions that we just can't have.

according to a reader at NRO via Peter Robinson. I thought this guy made some great points. Instapundit is linking also, here.

If someone came from the future and told me all our candidates would self-immolate one by one, leaving Fred standing, I would not be surprised.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

You wouldn't be surprised...but Fred would be speechless.

...but I wonder if we're witnessing the beginning of the end of the conservative coalition as we've known it for the past 30 years or so.

If either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney wins the nomination, they could keep the social and economic wings of the Republican party together. That's not to say that social conservatives would be thrilled about either of these candidates. And economic conservatives would be less than competely happy as well. But both wings could at least come to terms with these candidates.

The others would be a tough pill to swallow. If Colorado Governor Bill Owens had run for President, he might have done very well in this race. His record on social and economic issues isn't perfect. But it looks pretty good compare to the current candidates.

I think it's going to have to be Mitt or Fred (or McCain) -- but I think that Fred's too far gone. So I'm supporting Mitt now, after having supported Giuliani for the last 5 or 6 months.

I think Huck would drive away a lot of Republicans (not to mention people who aren't so socially conservative) and I think Giuliani would too. And, moreover, I think that Huck's surge is a direct response to the prospect of Giuliani -- something that SoCons just aren't going to have.

I actually think that the SoCon agenda would be better served by Giuliani than Romney, if they could swallow the prospect of supporting him. But they can't -- so this is the next best thing.

No mas. Go Mitt.

______________________________
"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

Rudy is the one that can actually get federalist judges on the bench to return the social issues to the legislatures where they belong. Until these issues are taken out of the courts, the soc con agenda is largely a moot point when it comes to elections.

A soc con president is going to have to compromise all over the place on judges making this all so counterproductive. I've been leaning Mitt all along while looking at Rudy for the same reasons you stated, but as with you I'm now going Mitt to try to hold this thing together.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Just why do you think that a social conservative president (like our current president) will have to compromise on judges? Would John Roberts not be an acceptable nominee to the current Senate?

Remember, it was fis-con GHWB who put Souter on the bench. I think it's clear today that "stealth" meant "liberal".

(and if you doubt that GHWB was a fis-con and not a social conservative, just look at his record. He gave just enough lip service to social conservatives to get by, and much of what he did was pure pandering on peripheral issues such as flag-burning. When it came to taxing, though, that was fine by him, regardless of what his lips said.)

When it came to taxing, though, that was fine by him, regardless of what his lips said.

Most others would say that's what made him not a FisCon ... but an old school "moderate."

Giuliani is the only candidate who will be competitive in states like New Jersey and PA. The GOP needs to break out of this Southern-Plains electoral box it has built for itself by pandering to the evangelicals. It is great to have religious people involved in party politics but they need to check their religious book at the door.

As far as Romney being the only candidate to keep the old Reagan coalition together, did it ever occur to you that it may be time to put together another coalition? Reagan is dead and has been out of office for 20 years. We need to capture the growing investor class. Giuliani is the man to do it. Romney could also have been the man to do it but he decided to pander to the evangelicals in Iowa.

...are the reason we have a Huckabee "problem." Heaven forbid us evangelicals not like a thrice married, adulterating, pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, social liberal from New York. Or heaven forbid we not like a constant flip-flopper from Massachussetts. Sorry we won't just shut up and go away.

You suggest we check our 'religious book' at the door? You mean the Bible? I appreciate the condescension. I apologize that I feel the senseless slaughter of millions of babies violates the tenants of my faith. Sorry that I have qualms with same-sex marriage.

For the record, I will not vote for Huckabee. He's too liberal on fiscal issues for me. I lean towards Thompson but am still undecided.

I will not vote for another SoCon, so help me God, after I vote for Huck and Huck loses the general (assuming Huck even wins the primary). I am sick to DEATH of SoCons who castigate individuals who fail to live up to their 'moral' standards or bash Mormonism as a cult and Mormons as freaks. I HOPE that a schism does erupt splitting fiscons security hawks and SoCons for good. Hopefully there will be a re-alignment where Pro Science, Pro Moderation, Security Hawk, Fiscon party will emerge and forever alienate SoCons with Socialists.

Just curious what you mean by pro-science. I think the whole global warming issue is a scam. Is that anti-science? Where do we draw the line between pro and anti science?

There is more to nature than the Global Warming scientists are willing to attribute.

I am an American Nationalist before anything else. And in order for American to maintain its position in the world it cannot cede its leadership position on cutting edge scientific research. Especially in genetic research. I agree, genetic research without safeguards can be dangerous. But I'm afraid many SoCons are uncomfortable with bio tech research because it smacks of 'playing god.' I believe God gave Man a brain in order that Man use it for his good.

We need to pursue scientific research in order to remain competitive. The line between pro and anti science is when those who would prefer limits and regulations on scientific research do so not out of concern that scientific research might actually harm America (example - mutant superviruses that can lead to pandemics), but rather that the research offends God in spite of potential harm to America's competitive position with other nations.

I wrote:

"but rather that the research offends God in spite of potential harm to America's competitive position with other nations"

I meant to write:

but rather out of concern that a specific type of research would offend God even though stopping such research would undermine America's competitive position vis a vis other countries.

(I'm a little brain fried. I apologize for my incoherent rambling)

...about anything incoherrent. I hope you can extend the same grace to me. :)

I'm a fiscal libertarian/social conservative, hence why I will not vote for Huckabee. I merely intended to state that Huckabee's surge is the creation of the establishment thinking they can appease us just by supporting constitutionalist judges. The social and fiscal conservative wings of the party can coexist as they have for years.

As for Romney's religion, I have my own personal views on it that are less than flattering but I would still vote for him in a heartbeat. His religion speech was spot-on. He just doesn't inspire me a whole lot at the moment. For me it's either Fred Romney, though.

And I very much agree that God gave man a brain and that we can use it to glorify Him. I don't need to sing hymns to praise God. I can work my tail off and use my "talent on loan from God."

And I think it is unfair to write Evangelicals off as anti-science. That placard over-simplifies a complex issue such as bio-engineering, which can produce some amazing things.

that SoCons are anti science.

When I was a kid, I was deeply bothered that God was higher than America the nation, that he had the power to essentially punish America if America went against his will.

That issue was never resolve for me. And though I'm a Christian, in matters of this world (politics, business) I am America first. It gets grey of course in some areas and it still troubles me. But America, the nation state, means something and worth preserving - even if its preseveration requires things I find abhorrent, like torture.

I'm rambling again however.

I love my country dearly. So much so that I joined the Reserves to give at least something back. I, obviously, put God first but I would do dang near anything for my country. It drives me crazy that so many Americans have an entitlement mentality rather than a sense of blessing just to be born here. Oh well. I'd best stop my rambling as well and try hit the racks, again.

good nite

That's entirely the point. But the GOP also needs the Rudy folks.

The Huck surge is just the "equal but opposite reaction" to the Rudy surge. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that either one of these guys would present a real difficulty with our base.

We need a compromise.

dangit, go read my blog.

When will people understand that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SEPARATE VALUES AND POLICY, nor is it possible to separate theology and values.

If you don't agree with this, please tell me how we are supposed to 'leave our religious book at the door'. How are we supposed to decide what policies support? How do you decide what policies to support? You have values informed by your worldview (which includes your metaphysical assumptions) just like everyone else and nobody is telling you to leave them at the door.

evangelical who still puts the GWOT as issue one, and who is still supporting Rudy.

It seems to me the GWOT is starting to lose it's level of importance. This may be due to the successes we have had and the resulting silence from the terrorists, or it may be from war fatigue; but whatever it is from it concerns me.

mikeleader

I too have been supporting Guiliani, but I'm coming to the realization that he just carries too much baggage and it's going to get much worse..If so many conservatives feel so strongly I have to pay attention...I will never vote for any of the three stooges demoncrats , so I seek a winner among our guys..Huck started to move me but his latest article due to come out in Foreign Affairs magazine disqualified him for me in the Primaries.(I'll still vote for him against any of the Dems)
He trashes Bush, says GW's administration has a bunker mentality, and says he'll have open communication with our enemies and the world and...it will be not America against the world, but the world and America against the terrorists..Now that comes right out of dnc talking points..He' off my radar!!

There is not a prayer he can win it all. Now look at his latest - slamming Bush's foreign policy and the Iraq war. That WILL NOT win points with us GWOT conservatives.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

I honestly can't find any difference between Huck and Obama on national security. The America is too mean and arrogant and we need to break bread with our worst enemies rhetoric is disturbing and dangerous.

Both are to the left of even Hillary on national security, and not much different on economics. That sad reality is the Republic would probably be safer in the hands of Hillary than Huck (a.k.a. Obama). At least she's not naive enough to believe the Ahmadinejad's of the world can have a change of heart after a few conversations. But then again, a few hundred prisoners in Arkansas fed Huck what he wanted to hear to get let off the hook. Now he wants to take that approach to the world stage where we aren't dealing with knives and guns but nukes and armies, very scary.

The more I think about it the more I may even have to vote Hillary over Huck for the sake of the nation's security. Dear God, I need to go take a shower now.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

they are praying (well they would if they believed in prayer) that we tear ourselves apart over Huck, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain.

They truly fear Fred because he will not tear this party apart and the others will and do. This is why I can see Fred being the last man standing. Otherwise I'm praying for Rudy.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

You have it backwards, bro.

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

Doh!

I'll vote for Huckabee. And the people saying this are as mystifying to me as you anti-Rudy folks.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

It was Adam C

As a Christian, I could never vote for Guiliani, and as a conservative, I cannot vote for another person from Hope (Of course I did not the first time). in '92, a lot of people, alot of Christians in the Bible Belt voted for Clinton thinking that he was different since he associated with some religious groups alot, but they were wrong. And what does the old adage say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. When I look at Huckabee and compare him to Clinton, the only difference I see is Clinton has a "D" at the end of his name. We cannot make the same mistake twice, or our children may never forgive us. That said, if Guiliani or Huckabee get the nomination, I will vote 3rd party for the first time in my life.

Jimmy Carter was the first, Clinton the second and Huckabee would be the third. I did not bite on the 1st or 2nd and I definitely won't bite on the 3rd.

And I get some of the comparisons. But equating Huck with Clinton and Carter does a disservice to him.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

Ask yourself these basic questions. Why would a man who was/is a minister leave the world of the spiritual for that of the worldly? Why would you leave that which is eternal for that which is fleeting?

I'm not religious, so those questions are not going to do all that much for me.

But I would probably say that he probably thought he could do more for God's children by fighting for them as the governor of Arkansas as he ever could as a pastor at a single church.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

Why would someone leave the highest calling in the world to stoop to run for president

Some of the comments here are way over the top.

I don't care for Huck much either. He's my least favorite Republican (right there with Ron Paul). But some of these comments here have gone beyond the pale.

Huckabee sure sounds a lot like Carter on foreign policy. Sorry but this latest round of wishy washy blame America for terrorism just turns my stomach. Huckabee seems to be positioning himself to the left of Hillary Clinton in terms of national security.

I'm not ready to say I would never vote for him in the general but I'm 3/4 of the way there.

We need a new one, a rebirth, and the only candidate who can do that has dropped so far in the polls that he is seldom mentioned.

in 24 hours
http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/StopTheHandShows.aspx

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

There is a coalition. It's just on the verge of collapsing now because of these two poisonous candidates.

You know, it's ironic...but it was widely reported that Bush and Rove had their designs on killing off the Democratic Party as a viable political force.

I'm reminded of the final scene in "The Hunt for Red October" where the Soviet sub captain is trying to fire on the Red October...but the sub and its American counterpart outmaneuver the torpedo. A subordinate tells the captain, right before impact "You arrogant a$$, you've sunk us!"

Bush may succeed in killing off a political party: His own. And, yes, this has plenty to do with him.

The one that can't win anywhere except the South and plains. Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia are now blue. The social issues are killing this party electorally. I am beginning to think that it will take a sound defeat in 2008 before people get it through their head that the old Reagan coalition is dead. Gone. Kaput.

I know a lot of Christians that would traditionally vote democrat if it wasn't for a handful of social issues. It's been shown that many democrat voting blocks (like the majority of African Americans) agree with social cons but vote Dem. If economic cons can't stand us social cons (I'm a social con first, an economic con second), maybe we could switch parties, and the social libs can vote Republican. See how far that goes.

The GOP used have hegemony in several Northeastern suburban areas, these voters have been driven away with the constant preaching on social issues. The Dems now represent the wealthiest and upcoming districts. These should be a natural costituency for the GOP. What is is not? Social issues. The party electoral footprint is shrinking with each election cycle. This constant push on the abortion issue is idiotic. No matter how much the American people dislike abortion, the like even less the idea of the police rifling through the private medical records of women looking for illegal abortions. It has been more than 30 years since Roe vs. Wade and despite the howls of baby killers, holocaust, majorities 55% of American describe themselves as pro-choice and do not want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. If ever the GOP loses the votes of all pro-choicers they will get a spanking at the poll that they won't soon forget.

Because it is a horribly decided case that undermines our federal form of government which is one of the safeguards against intrusive overreaching government.

On the other hand, I agree that those who live in socially moderate jurisdictions and want to practice a less restrictive abortion policy should be allowed to do so, the same way those who live in socially conservative jurisdictions should be allowed to prohibit abortions to their hearts' content.

that's never going to happen because it is illogical.

You either have to agree that it is murder and should be outlawed everywhere, or you have to agree that it is not human (until some arbitrary point) and protect a woman's right to her body everywhere (I like the anology of the EPA telling you that you can't kill a fungus growing on your foot because it's endangered). You can't have a middle ground on this issue any more than you could have a middle ground on slavery or rape. Any middle ground admits the rights of both and denies them at the same time.

generally speaking, the legal definition of 'murder' is decided by states and not by the federal government. If the federal government has a murder statute, then it's probably only for very specific purposes such as Uniformed Code of Military Justice -- the laws governing the conduct of military personnel.

Therefore, broadly and loosely speaking, the federal government doesn't have the power to tell the states what 'murder' is. It's for states to decide.

Why is this the case? Because the Constiution says so.

I can find numbers to contradict your claim that the majority of Americans are pro-choice. Even if I was to concede that your numbers were true (which I am not), you cannot site that a definite majority of Americans are economic conservatives or that they are as dedicated to the cause of economic conservatism as pro-lifers are to their cause. It is a losing proposition to tell the socons to take a hike. If democrats catered to socons, you'd find Democrat candidates getting elected in FDR style landslides.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an economic con. But the disdain that country club conservatives have for Jerry Fallwell types only illustrates they don't appreciate what got them ellected. Rush frequently points out that the country club types are happy to remain in the minority, and he's right.

The arguments made by FisCons, in particular the Laffer Curve, strikes most average Americans as 'voodoo economics'. Unfortunately as a result, it is unlikely that counterintuitive ideas like this could ever gain broad support.

This constant push on the abortion issue is idiotic.

Right on. Stay out of my womb and don't interfere in decisions I make with my doctor. This is a conservative position.

I will still vote for Huckabee if he wins the nomination. But I know he will lose. After he loses, I will never vote for another SoCon again.

There are two candidates I will not vote for Huck and Paul. Both will be a disaster for the party and the country. I even thought of that it might be good for the GOP if Huck gets nominated. He will lose so badly and we'll have a chance to restart the GOP based on three principles: strong defense, limited federal government and individual freedom. But I am sure that if Huck were to lose, the SoCons will be the first to say that Huck lost because he didn't talk about moral values enough. That's always their excuse. Isn't?

They would blame FisCons for not supporting their candidate. While lack of fiscon support would contribute marginally to a Huck defeat, even FULL FisCon support would not ensure a Huck victory because Huck would motivate Libs like no other candidate can to go and vote in the general election.

Non-socons say that every election cycle. They said that about Reagan, they said it about GB Sr., and they said it about GWB. They were wrong each time. Did Bob Dole seem WAY too pro-life and that guaranteed his defeat? Last I checked, he didn't claim to talk to God like GW, and GW won... twice. I'm not claiming that Bob Dole would have won if he did cater more to socons, I'm just pointing out it never hurt a national candidate. And that's a proven fact.

I am too young to remember the election dynamics of Reagan and GBush Sr. I can say with confidence that GWB (jr) was perceived as a welcome change from the sleaze of the Clinton years so his brand of SoCon religiosity was not a weakness in the 2000 election cycle. Also, in 1996, the real height of Clinton sleaze, Monica Lewinksy, had not happened yet. And the economy was chugging along in 1996.

There are tons of factors that of course come into play every election cycle, and everything you mentioned is true. But I definitely recall the pro-Forbes guys claiming that we need to move away from Roe v Wade or we'll motivate the libs. I also remember the lib crazies going bonkers claiming that a Bush presidency would be a disaster for women. Neither 2000 nor 2004 appeared to work out for those "over-motivated" non-socons. Would you seriously consider an argument that we shouldn't be too fiscally conservative or we might motivate the non-fiscally-conservatives too much?

Good chatting with you, jhy8a, but I got to get some programming in before I pass out. I'll check up on this conversation later.

I doubt that dour FisCons can be motivated by anything more than $$$$.... (j/k).

I think 2004 was a War/Security election so the non socons were willing to put up with a socon Pres as long as they trusted him to keep them safe. 2008... that is the BIG mystery, will it be War, Economy, Social Issues? Rush seems to think its a combination of all three... he thinks its a "What Path Do We Take Towards Tomorrow" election...

I find Huck to be a nice guy in the Jimmy Stewart mold (they even resemble each other somewhat in appearance and accent). But I find it hard to imagine that more Americans will put their faith (pardon the pun) in him than in Hillary or Obama. I for one have more faith in him than any Democrat because I think his currently naive positions on Fiscal and Security issues are due mostly to the fact that he only became a contender recently so he's only at the start of the learning curve. Since he seems like a reasonably smart guy, I feel confident that in several months time he will 'see the light' and adjust his positions accordingly. Of course his Foreign Affairs article that just came out doesn't inspire much confidence.... but we'll see.

Have a good night

are not killing the the party. that's bunk. the reason states are turning blue is because of things like education, healthcare, and worries about the economy. people are worried they won't be able to afford any of it and they think the dems will give it too them. unless these these candidates offer a (convincing) alternate view on these issues, we'll lose this election.

that is my take.

They have plenty of money to pay for healthcare and education. Why aren't these people voting for the GOP? They are sick of the preaching. When polls are taken about social issues, large majority agree that there is too much immorality on TV, etc. Yet Desperate Wives hits the top of the ratings. There is a lot of hypocrisy going on.

I think the reason why so many wealthy people vote Democrat is b/c they think most people are stupid and need the government to help them. I do think that the social issues are a part of it, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

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

I think Mike Huckabee is weak on defense.

I think he gets crushed against any of the Dems.

If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate Huckabee I'll need to take a cab to vote for him because I will not be sober.

Mike Huckabee is easily the most digusting candidate either party has ever considered.

Bobby Kennedy. Teddy Kennedy. George Wallace. Strom Thurmond. Really?

MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08

At least all of those people, no matter how ridiculous their policy ideas were, weren't disingenuous about them. I'd rather pull the lever for Josef Stalin than Huckabee; he'd probably be more fiscally conservative.

I don't think that it can really be called fiscally conservative when you save money be reducing the number of people dependent on the government by reducing the population of the country...

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

"I'd rather pull the lever for Josef Stalin than Huckabee; he'd probably be more fiscally conservative."

I mean, I know you're being vaguely facetious (I hope so), but that's just absurd to say. You're talking about a man that was possibly responsible for more deaths than Hitler.

www.mikehuckabee.com

I was, indeed, being facetious. I didn't mean to insult the memories of any of Stalin's victims.

Some less murderous, yet still more conservative, replacements could be:
Mike Gravel, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (hey, they have similar judicial philosophies!), Ben Affleck, Noam Chomsky, Evo Morales, and any past nominee of the Worker's World party.

#1: Mao
#2: Stalin
#3: Hitler

Hitler did his killings in a much shorter period of time than either Mao or Stalin (he probably has the record in average number of deaths per year).

Comparisons of any presidential candidate to Stalin minimizes the evil that Stalin was.

With the Kennedy's and with Wallace and Thurmond, what you saw was what you got. They operated on an exceedingly open agenda and made no bones about where they stood or what they would do. As much as I dislike the politics of all of them, they were at least honest men.

Moving right along to Bubba Jr., he is fundamentally, to the core, dishonest. His lies about the fuel tax issue and his attempt to snag the furniture from the governor's mansion along with a couple of hundred thousand on "gifts" are a real wake up call.

This guy will make us long for the good old days of Big Bubba and to top it all off he will accomplish exactly none of his signature points - HLA, FMA, FlatTax - and will sell the rest of the national agenda down the river to the Dems in the spirit of "working together" for the Amerian people.

He will make Jimmy Carter look good.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

As an ultra conservative evangelical Christian, I'd rather see this country go totally socialist under the leadership of HRC than by a republican. Ace is right, at least then, the lines would be clearly drawn, and the blame could be clearly placed where it belongs when our country turns into another France or Germany.

I have decided that I will never again vote for any candidate who espouses any form of compassionate conservatism. There is no such thing. Socialism is the end result, no matter what you choose to call it.

Amen brother. To be betrayed by one of your own is revolting, Judas ring a bell. By the opposition party is another thing, you expect it from them but not your own.

Huck is also right on the 2nd amendment & the fair tax (although there are too many hurdles for it to happen).

the comments to the posts I've linked to.

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

I'll find bloggers saying whatever I need them to and in whatever way you want.

You're comparing two bloggers with the likes of James Dobson, and whats more their positions aren't as ridiculous or damaging as his ill conceived ones were. Neither of the duo is threatening or in a position to form a third party.

You want to make the comparison to leaders of major political organizations active in the party threatening third party splits handing the election to hillary.

If Huck gets the nomination GOOD. It will teach a lesson to the people that put him there. I will just be sorry I have to suffer along with them through 8 years of Hillary.
______________________________
"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 vote for Huckleberry if he gets the nomination, but the socons are absolute hypocrites for imploring everyone considering Rudy to pick someone who wouldn't destroy the party, then they go and cast their lot with a candidate that will destroy the party from the other direction.

Well ok, maybe your adjective for 3rd party voters is more accurate.

In Nov. '08, serious voters will face the reality that either the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee will be the next President. Then they make their best judgment on which of those two America would be better off with in the White House, and vote for that candidate. (A possible exception is where the election is so obviously one-sided, that 3rd party votes couldn't possibly make a difference.)

They decide their vote on what they believe is best for America. In contrast, 3rd party voters decide their vote on the basis of what gives them the greatest self gratification.

I don't agree with "I won't vote for Huck," or "I won't vote for Giuliani," folks.

If someone honestly believes Hillary as President would do less damage to America than the Republican nominee, then voting for her is the right thing to do. I think Huckabee would probably be better than Clinton so I would vote for him, but it's a close enough call that I'd have to seriously consider which one is really worse.

When people talk about not voting for the Republican nominee if it's Giuliani or if it's Huckabee, there is a significant difference between most of those Giuliani critics vs. Huckabee critics.

Those threatening to vote against Giuliani much more often cite the need to discipline the Republican Party for defying their will, or their hurt feelings about not feeling appreciated by Republicans. It's almost always all about themselves, with precious little discussion about what vote is best for America.

Among those pondering whether they'd vote for Clinton over Huckabee, the issue is more often whether Huckabee would be an even worse President for America than Clinton.

If you believe that the Republican nominee is going to take the country in the wrong direction, then it's basically a moral imperative to vote the other way. Because in that case you feel that it's guaranteed the country's headed in the wrong direction for four years, but only a Democrat victory would have the chance of limiting it to four.

Now you could certainly argue degrees and amounts, but the basic premise is sound. Now, I'd basically decided with Giuliani that while he would take the country in the wrong direction, it, just barely, wasn't enough to justify that. But in my mind, it's an extremely close call.

And I honestly haven't made up my mind on Huckabee. But my instinct is to defend him when I see him being savaged by the same people trying to ram down our throats a different kind of liberal.

One, although the discourse around here has clearly slipped over the last three weeks, "masturbatory" still falls below the acceptable floor. Let's bring it up a notch.

Second, a vote for third party is *not* a vote for Hillary, and is a by far preferrable solution. Let us hypothesize a pool of 20 voters. 7 are committed to vote for Rudy, 7 for Hillary, and 6 are undecided. The winner will be decided on who gets the most votes (this total does not have to equal 10 - consistent with a real election, we are hypothesizing that just staying home and not voting for anyone is a real choice that is actually chosen by a not insignificant number of voters.) Now imagine that all 6 of the undecideds are "I won't vote for Rudy" people. If they all go out and vote third party, or simply vote for nobody at all, they do not change the ultimate outcome of the race, because they cannot collectively give someone more votes than either Rudy or Hillary. Therefore, from Rudy's perspective, they are not a +1, but a 0. However, let us suppose that even one of those 6 decides to actually vote for Hillary - in so doing, they will have actually given the election to Hillary. This makes them basically a -1 for Rudy.

Now let's go ask Rudy whether he wants those people to vote third party or vote for Hillary.

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

I wouldn't personally consider that term offensive when used in a way to demonstrate a fair point, heck, I associated the term with third party voting because Michael Medved has said the same thing on the air before, but whatever.

Anyhow, you are missing the point on the third party thing. Of course, you are right that the outcome could theoretically be different if people voted for Hillary or voted for a third party. That is WHY it's nothing but a "feel good for me" vote.

If you honestly thought that Giuliani/Huckabee/whomever is so bad that you'd vote third party, you are saying you would rather have Hillary be President then them. You can try to spin and make stuff up and justify it, but the end result is that if you are not willing to vote for someone who has a realistic chance of beating her, you are saying that you would rather have her be President then the person you won't vote for. There is no other logical way to see it.

But if you believe that, then logically, you'd go the whole way and vote for her. The only reason you wouldn't is to make yourself feel good, so you can whine about whoever wins and declare yourself to be above it all. That might stroke your ego, but it doesn't help America.

So in one sense, it's true, since I would most likely prefer the Republican nominee to Hillary (only exception would be Ron Paul), I'd rather have those people vote third party because it would give the Republican nominee a better chance of winning. However, I wouldn't have a whole lot of respect for those people, because they apparently are too self-absorbed or diluted to realize what they are really saying with their vote, which is making themselves feel good at the expense of doing what they think is best for the country.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

artist1

Nominate Huck and Hillary gets elected and her coat tails are such that there is no block in the Senate or House to stop her from doing as you say.

Nominate anyone else and we may loose the Whitehouse, depending on the top of the ticket, but at least it won't be a rout down ticket.

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

Why do so many online conservatives say that? What makes him a better conservative than say Hunter? And don’t give me the “He has no name recognition” excuse. If online bloggers spent half the time pumping up Hunter as they did Thompson before Thompson even got in the race, Hunter be at least where Thompson is now.
I've noticed that a disproportionate number of conservative bloggers are atheists. And to me that explains why the conservative blogosphere is largely disconnected from the social conservatives (see the fawning praise for the likes of Christopher Hitchens just because he agrees that Islam is violent). I’ve only found one blogger who even called out Fred on his “abortion should be decided at the state level because of Federalism” BS. Sure, I’d accept a practical, incrementalist argument that a constitutional amendment just isn’t possible so let’s fix it at the state level, but to claim federalism is your reason is just disingenuous or dumb. A true federalist who believe that abortion is murder (not some kind of religious issue or sexual misconduct) would absolutely try to outlaw it nationwide at the highest level (just like the 13th amendment). Great, now I’m ranting about abortion.
I don’t want to vote for a non-fiscal-conservative, but I have to have priorities and right now those are national security and abortion tied for first place. My primary strategy since I live in Florida is Hunter unless I think there is someone who can take Florida from Giuliani. My general strategy is to vote for whoever the republican candidate is since the Democrats don’t stand for ANYTHING I believe in.

Murder is generally prosecuted as a state crime, not a federal one. And that's the way it should be. And the penalties differ from state to state. Here in Texas we like to see them pay the highest price. In liberal enclaves? Not so much. There's basically no reason to have federal murder laws at all.

So it's not at all inconsistent to see abortion the same way.

As a rabid libertarian and strict constructionist of our Constitution, the argument that the states should be free to choose regarding the abortion issue is enticing, but wrong.

If a state chooses to legalize abortion, that is more than a matter of state's rights; it's permitting a state to execute a totally innocent person.

It would no different than permitting a state, if it so chose, to eliminate all murder crimes. It would be no crime to kill any person, at any time, for any reason, no questions asked. Would that law be consistent with the US Constitution?

I don't think so, because if nothing else, our constitution requires the government to protect it's citizens, and not allow them to be murdered by either foreign or domestic enemies. Isn't there something in the Constitution about no person being denied life, liberty, or property without due process? That is not a provision that the state may arbitrarily disregard.

So I think that Fred Thompson is totally wrong on this issue, and either he doesn't understand the constitution, or is pandering to the pro-abortionist crowd.

You beat me to it.

Actually any state could eliminate murder crimes. The framers were not establishing a government to address wild-eyed hypotheticals. They established a government to address the essence of human nature -- the grasping for power. They left enormous amounts of power in the hands of the states to keep the feds from having it. And they split what federal power they did create between three branches of government, each with enough power to fight the other two and keep them from becoming all powerful.

The Constitutional provision you cite (5th Amendment) prevents the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A parallel provision (14th Amendment) says no state can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. These provisions requires due process in the adjudicatory functions of the government. They do not apply at all to acts by private citizens.

Your position is not strict constructionist by any stretch of the imagination. A strict constructionist realizes that the framers did not place every question in the hands of an all-wise federal judiciary. In fact they left the vast majority in the hands of the voters.

if some state simply didn't outlaw murder at all? What if I drove you across the state lines, shot you in the head and drove back? Don't you think there would be a federal problem? Human rights are a federal issue. The details like severity of punishment should be a state issue.

If you believe that abortion violates a human's rights as agregiously as slavery does, then you have to make it a federal issue. That would be in keeping with Federalism.

Crossing state lines would make this a matter within the scope of Congressional power.

You have to clarify your argument as to what the Constitution requires and what policy you would like to implement through the structures established by that Constitution. The Constitution does not address private deprivations of life. That is a matter of state statute.

If you believe that abortion is an evil on a par with slavery and should be treated accordingly, you must do the same thing that had to be done to eliminate slavery -- pass a Constitutional amendment banning the practice. (It is noteworthy that the 13th Amendment is the only constitutional provision that addresses a right private citizens may not violate. Every other part of the constitution defines governmental structure or rights protected from government interference.)

Perhaps not directly in amendments, but it clear from the founding that the feds handle the weighty issues that states can't resolve.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Law_of_1793

The feds assumed the power to resolve those issues that the states couldn't resolve between themselves. I know I'm supplying a law that runs contrary to my moral position, but the logic is analogous. If one state (PA) allows its citizens to assist in violating another state’s laws (VA), especially on some kind of moral grounds and on a weighty issue involving concepts like life, liberty and property, the feds absolutely need to step in and resolve it. The founders had no problem forcing PA to cease helping slaves escape.

Analogously if VA made a law protecting the lives of the unborn, and PA was assisting in their murder, the Feds would absolutely have to step in and resolve the issue one way or another. This is not a “wild-eyed hypothetical”, although I use wild-eyed hypotheticals because they get to the root of the problem by reducing it to the core principles involved.

So yes, I absolutely believe that at the federal level (perhaps not in amendment form though that would be preferable), abortion has to be resolved one way or another and not by the courts.

And if a state were to eliminate murder laws entirely, the feds would most certainly be forced to step in just as they did for slavery in 1793. That is the federalist approach: leave as much up to the states as possible, but when they can't resolve weighty issues, step in.

has a very strong single women bloc--the group that is most active at the polls. Everyone else is turned off to her in particular, but they are turned on to the Dem party as a whole. The GOP is basically doomed this election unless it nominates someone out of the mainstream of the party with name recognition (like Guiliani or *ugh* McCain).

Thompson could unite the factions, but would lose in a Goldwater-esqe fashion. Also, when you consider that we'll probably have a very strong "big tent" candidate in 4-8 years with Bobby Jindal (assuming he hold up in office), I don't think we have to worry too much about "the future of conservatism".

That is unless, of course, we elect someone like Huck. Then there is a possibility of tipping the party completely into the "Reagan Democrat" section--strong on social values and (maybe) national security, but extremely bad on spending and taxes.

So there you have it. My reasons for supporting Guiliani =)

Sitting out or voting third party is washing your hands of the whole thing. Voting is actual approval, and is of twice the magnitude.

One of those two nominees, Republican or Democrat, will be President for the next 4 to 8 years. Even if they both stink, most people care enough about their country to vote for the one that is better (or less bad) for their country

I am with you on this one. I am tired of RINO's. I want real conservatives, not people using the party as a vehicle to power and money. Real Conservatives would decrease the Federal Government and turn more powers back to the states.

Yea I mean this is just out of control. Peggy Noonan wrote today in her column wondering if Reagan could survive in today's GOP, my answer No way! Reagan could never be elected. We also could Never elect George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in today's political environment..they would easily lose to the political elites of today.

And was vocal in his opposition to them
______________________________
"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

Much ado about nothing

Tis a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

______________________________
"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

You mean fascinating seeing a Democrat landslide like none other in history, every state in except the Southern states, and Alaska would automatically go Blue in BIG numbers.

you assume.

I meant fascinating in that both Huckabee and Obama project optimism in a way that no one else does. They also seem to connect with people in a unique way.

Alas, neither projects any serious grasp of the foreign policy and security issues that will face the next president. And the primary role of the modern presidency is to deal with them.

Theres a damn big number that gets creeped out by Preachers. The same way Hillary motivates people that normally won't vote to go to the polls and flip a lever for anyone but her, The Huckster will motivate them to stay home and other people to flip one for her.
______________________________
"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 think she will, but this is no longer a sure thing.

Politics is a volatile thing.

Guess you haven't seen the Huckabee essay in 'Foreign Affairs' yet, slamming the Bush Admin. style..

Remember, we were supposed to support her -- like Huck -- because of her personal religious and social beliefs. Never mind her utter lack of jurisprudential ideas...

Sound familiar?

I don't want judges to have ideas. The fewer ideas judges have, the better, because then they have nothing left but the Constitution. Same goes for legislators and executives.

www.republicansenate.org

Unlike you, I will still vote for Huck in spite of his current wide eyed obliviousness to important conservative issues because I realize he has just started a learning curve on policy matters. After all he's only been a major candidate for all of 3 weeks now. Unlike SoCons like yourself who have demonized Rudy, I will give Huck the benefit of my doubt because I am reasonable. But it's because of mind numbingly unreasonable SoCons like yourself that I will NEVER vote for another SoCon after Huck loses in the general.

your logic is bad, why would you trust huck and not Giuliani? Did you even bother to read his twelve commitments? Now tell me, in all his time of public service does he have a reputation for going back on promises? NO! He has a reputation of doing as he said he would.

I have decided to support Romney just because of fuzzy headed people like you who cannot look past the foibles of Rudy's personal life. (like all of us are perfect) But I am absolutely certain he would be just the right president for this time.

Huck, on the other hand, I will throw in with ACE, I held my nose and voted three times for the Bush's who have nearly destroyed the conservative movement. But I will not vote for George Huckleberry Bush III.

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

This is very late, but I just came across the comment now. Yes, I've read Rudy's commitments. I have also read his redefinition of "strict constructionist" in which he includes judges who equate precedent with the Constitution. As to you supporting Romney because of "fuzzy headed people like" me, good.

www.republicansenate.org

Then you might as well vote for Hillary... it's like not voting for Huck twice. Who wouldn't want their vote to count for twice as much? One of them is going to win. They aren't exactly the same... so why sit out (which is what a write in vote is... just with more work for the election officials).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Of course I mean "one of the two candidates," not "Hillary or Huckabee."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

______________________________
"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

Re your last paragraph, we are having an attack of the nasties with all the stereotyping and namecalling, especially the religiously bigoted overtones.

Enough already!

And as I said above, I will vote for Huckabee over Ms. Perfect, Obama, or the Great Trial Lawyer.

I’m as conservative as they come, but when forced to choose between fiscal and social, I’ll always choose social and most evangelicals feel the same way.

I don't understand why just because I oppose more government regulation on business, restrictive trade policies, higher taxes and more government spending that I must have to accept same sex marriage and gun control as part of the bargain.

I would like a candidate who supports the right of citizens to be armed and a free enterprise economy. I want a lower tax burden and a more constitutionalist US Supreme Court.

On abortion, I would be willing to accept a patchwork system where each state could establish its own laws on this. I see no reason why I should have to sacrifice social issues for economic issues or vica versa. That's why I support Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.

That's why I support Thompson. And I don't oppose Romney, I just don't trust him. If he gets the nomination he'll get my vote, even though I'll be understanding that it's a gamble as to whether or not he really believes any of this stuff he's been saying.

And honestly, if you took away McCain-Feingold and his decades of disdain for Conservatives, I wouldn't oppose McCain. But you can't do that.

And honestly, if you took away McCain-Feingold and his decades of disdain for Conservatives, I wouldn't oppose McCain. But you can't do that.

The reason why I'm willing to gamble on Romney and I am not as willing to gamble on McCain is this:

McCain represented Arizona in the Senate for years. He knew he was presidential material because of his Prisoner of War record. So, if he had been a conventional conservative Republican from the start, he wouldn't of had any incentive to vote with the Democrats on tax cut issues. He wouldn't have had any reason to call Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." He wouldn't have had any incentive to co-sponsor McCain-Kennedy on immigration or McCain-Feingold on campaign finance.

He could have just waited his turn and he would have been handed the nomination in a blowout.

Instead, he decided to take on the Republican party on tax cuts, campaign finance, the religious supporters and so on. So, he lost in 2000 against Bush and is struggling in this race.

Romney had incentives to move Left, just like former Massachusetts Republcian governor William Weld. Weld still describes himself as a social liberal. Romney could have done a Giuliani, stay consistent on the social issues. But he didn't. Maybe he's a rank opportunist. But a rank opportunist who likes kissing up to the conservatives in the Republican party (Romney) is better than a media hound who likes kissing up to the mainstream media (McCain).

In any case, McCain had to go against his state's preferences to be a maverick. Romney had to go against his state's preferences to be a conservative convert on social issues.

It was better to destroy the party than operate within the framework.

The funny thing is they thought the other side wouldn't play the same game.
______________________________
"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

It started with Rudy and his supporters.

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

I mean how dare they vote for the guy they felt was best.

I mean really, then they were too stupid to change when threatened.

You really don't want people like that around.
______________________________
"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

This started with the people who said they'd abandon the party. Be it people abandoning over Rudy or over Huck. They're the same in my book. They're awful Republicans and ultimately doing a disservice to their personal beliefs if they refuse to support the Republican in the general.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

______________________________
"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

Are you an adult? Are you sure?

"But MOMMY, he started it first!!!" (stomps feet, sucks thumb, throw tantrum)
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

This comment is worth me becoming a big Jay Cutler fan.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

The kid has something special, he's going to be a good one for a long time.

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

A long time ago I linked to sportsblognation from Redstate sports. There I found MileHighReport. It is by far the best Broncos blog I've ever read. Lots of experts and former caoch types over there. Drop in and visit.

As to your point about pointing fingers; thank you. I'm glad someone here gets it.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

OrangeMane has gotten almost unreadable.

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

This statement applies equaly to Rudy and Huck people. Each think their brand of partial liberalism is ok, and each thinks the other side should tow the line when their guy is on top.

It doesn't matter who started it. One side did, then the other side acted like hypocrits. The side that started it depends on your perspective, but both sides are guilty of acting like children, including many people I used to respect.

People that don't support working in the framework include both people who support a rino while demanding others quit the party instead of voting down ticket (Rudy isn't a republican by hardly any conservative standards, and neither is Huck), and those too sickened by the liberal rinos that they feel they need to vote third party or dem. Like I said, no one should vote for a member of ANY party (including the GOP) that insults their beliefs.

The same people that insisted that we stomach Rudy are now getting a taste of their own medicine with Huck's emergence, and hypocriticaly are spouting the same sentiments as Rudy supporters did. They deserve it. Huck supporters are throwing their lot in with a rino just like the Rudy folks, and now they don't like others not backing their candidate.

If you take a side on this issue you are as bad as the other side. Bith sides are full of rinos, both sides don't want to support the other candidate if he wins, and both sides are placing their own candidates above what is best for the party and conservatism.

Shame on both of your sides! You know both sides are guilty of something when they have to resort to "He started it". RedState just hasn't been fun or quality reading since the bomb throwing started (and everyone has done it and it started well before Rudy and Huck). I remember old fights over Gingrich, Romney, et al. And we all give ourselves a pass on Paul don't we?

We need to clean up our own house if we're going to fight the dems, and right now we have a bunch of half lib candidates and a bunch of angry supporters that would rather point fingers than praise their own guy. Pathetic!

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

Nobody on the Rudy side is talking third party. (Don't compare bloggers with Party Leaders) Grover Norquist isn't threatening to organize a third party, Neither are the people at Club for Growth.

But I see the false equivalence game is alive and well.
______________________________
"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

First of all, CFG and Grover Norquist are not party leaders. That individual and that group are not representatives of the Republican Central Committee.

My remarks (clearly) are being directed at members of RedState. I don't follow Dobson, and I don't follow Ace of Spades either (just as many blacks could care less about Sharpton, or gays about Act Up).

I'm a conservative, and as such am speaking to individuals. If I were talking to think tanks, political action committees, or other groups I wouldn't do it here.

I'm talking to RS members that are tearing this site (and this party apart) and spend more time pointing fingers than taking responsibility. I have done it, and pledge to stop. Others are continuing, and fail to look in the mirror because of their zest for their candidate. It hurts RS, it hurts our party, it hurts the conservative movement, and it ultimately hurts our country. Their are appropriate ways to converse and to support our candidates. I'm not seeing much of it.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

...I've been as guilty as others on this point. In fact, I mentioned it twice. If you choose not to read my entire comment don't bother to respond.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

and "everyone" you did not criticize yourself until you wrote the above.

But you came clean, so that's progress.

This is why bothering to respond is a good idea.

I agree with all of you about Fred Thompson, I think he's the only candidate that deserves to win the nomination. Unfortunately it was his to lose, and it appears he lost it.

But my main point was this, we can't nominate a NY social liberal, or a man that's changed positions 3 times on abortion and expect the evangelical block of the party to just take it. They shouldn't have to. They represent the majority of the base and perform the majority of the grass rooting that takes place.

Reagan, as governor of California, signed an abortion law before Roe versus Wade. Still, after Roe versus Wade, Reagan became part of the pro-life movement.

I realize that this isn't they way we would like it. We would prefer candidates who have been pro-life since they emerged from Mom's womb. But that's not the reality. The reality is that Gore went from pro-life to pro-abortion. And we have many who have gone from pro-abortion to pro-life.

Given the choices, we need to take that into consideration. That's not to say that a change in position on an issue like abortion should just be swallowed up without thought. It's just that for a politician to publicly admit that he was previously wrong for being pro-abortion isn't easy for some. Many politicians pretend that they have never changed their minds and that their former position is consistent with their current one.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't put a "keep out" sign on the pro-life movement. We have to select candidates based on the available alternatives.

That’s fine and I’d support a pro-choice candidate if he/she was consistently conservative on other social issues. However, a large percent of the base, and probably the most powerful percent, won’t support a candidate that they don’t trust on the issue of life. And if there was any question as to how powerful or large that percent of the base is, it’s been answered with Huckabee now leading most national polls.

... or a man that's changed positions 3 times on abortion ...

Once. Not three times. Once.

I know it's fashionable to pick up any issue and some arbitrary number and then claim that he changed his position on that issue that number of times but it doesn't make it true.

you have deluded yourself into going against a truly conservative person who has made specific promises to conservatives, But most of us who were his supporters are ready to support Rommny for the sake of party unity. But even Rommny is not good enough for some of the bible thumpers in the party so they are going with mr. "compassionate conservatism redux".

If Huck gets the nomination and is blown out by the Democrats I tell you, it will be socons who will take all the blame.

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

"Bottom line, I'll take a man who I disagree with on somethings but who is genuine enough not to change his stances to get votes"

You mean the guy who invited illegals into his state and was calling anti-amnesty folks "bigots" until, a few weeks ago, he decided he was against illegal immigration after all?

Everything I've heard about Huck indicates he is against illegal immigration, BUT he has some understanding for the children of illegals. I am not exactly enthusiastic about this position but at least he is keeping with his character and values.

As for the bigot comments, thats the first i've heard of it. I imagine you are taking a comment out of context or grossly exaggerating one....either way its a deceptive dirty trick.

Yet another excuse for Huckabee.

He's been anti-illegal immigration for as long as I've been hitting the gym really hard to prep for Christmas food... about three weeks.

I don't need to make excuses...i admit I do not agree with his vies 100%, but I have seen to many Presidents to believe the sweet promises of political candidates. I like Huck b/c I believe he is genuine; and he is conservative enough for me. If you can look at Mitt and not see a politician than you havent yet learned the skill of seeing through the schmoozing involved in politics.

Way to go Huckbot.

I dare you to go through ANY of my posts to see if I've ever said a word about Romney... I haven't done that search, but I'd bet real money I've never said anything in support of Romney.

But in true Huckbot fashion, you'll immediately attack another candidate you see as a threat in trying to prove that you Heart Huckabee because he's an honest and nice guy who would never say anything bad about any other candidate.

It's surprising that both Hypocrisy and Huckabee starts with the same letter, and in my mind, becoming more and more synomis.

Well, I merely compare huck to mitt b/c I think they are good foils. Looking at Huckabee helps one to see the Politician-ness of Mitt. If i jumped to conclusions by assuming you support mitt i certainly apologize. Like my original post stated I read RS daily and I see a lot of Mitt supporters bashing Huck.

Not to start another topic but I think a lot of the people who are not fond of Huck are too bogged down in ideology to see that their is a real world and real world problems sometimes create gray areas. I realize as conservatives we do not feel tax hikes are healthy to the econony etc....but there is the occassional time and place where such might make sense in the real world.

Moreover, the Huckman might have supported more tax increases in the past than I would have...I think we need to keep in mind that it is the Congress's job to control the purse.

Huckabee isn't "genuine." As soon as he started getting attention he suddenly started changing his positions on things like the Cuban embargo and pandering with mostly empty rhetoric wrapped up in the Bible. Mitt is more transparent with the pandering, but Huckabee and Mitt are both cut from the same cloth.

If thats the case i'm sold hook line and sinker. But I hope your wrong. I think right now our country needs a real person as a leader, not your stereotypical politician who panders for votes. So if Huck's that I hope he isn't elected (not really sure if there's another candidate then to support)...but i believe he is more of a real person then the rest of them. But I can admit that there is a possibiltity that he's just good and has fooled me...but certainly hope thats not the case.

I would not vote for any of these Democratic candidates, but a vote for Huck is a vote for a Dem. Not because it would get a Dem elected, but because Huck's agenda is mostly a Democratic one. He would close Gitmo, and waste his time with a gimicky tax plan.
If there was a third party candidate who fit my views, I'd vote third party.
If Hillary is our next president, she will be a one term president and by the time she finishes, the GOP will have both houses back.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Maybe Huck is not a hardline conservative. But certainly a vote for Huck (over a 3rd party or Dem) is a vote for conservatism...any statement to the contrary is poppy cock! Just because he has raised some taxes in his tenure as governor does not make him a Lib. The 3 greatest jobs of a President is 1.)nominating Justices (certainly you'd agree Huck would meet our criteria there) 2.) Communicating through the bully pulpit (he would be twice as good as any of the other choices...and the BEST at communicating since Reagan). And finally to use the veto pen. I believe if you look at his record in Ark. honestly you'd see he ended w/ a surplus and did not raise as many taxes as the smear clip makes it appear.

I bet that there some murderers who think Huckabee is a man of integrity. You read that letter he sent to Wayne Dumond?

"Integrity"...Really?

you and I must define integrity completely different.

I use the dictionary version.

You and Huckabee must use the "approved Huckationary version."

In the that book it's "whatever Huckabee does."

Well... there are people who don't find lying about past actions (on EVERYTHING it appears) as being very upstanding and honest.

Nice try though... go show some Huckalove to your candidate by bashing some Mormons, calling those who don't want to pay for illegal immigrants as anti-Christian, and spending billions on a mission to Mars.

How is Huckabee going to balance the budget when he's spending money on "prevention" medicine and aid to illegals? It doesn't do us any good for him to be a communicator if all he communicates is platitudes and generalities. I want a President who will defend the Constitution and roll back the nanny state. Huckabee is a statist that wants to use big government to do "good" deeds, just like the Democrats, except that his "good" deeds have an allegedly Republican spin on them.

I take it that you mean that Huckabee neglected women's rights by advocating the release of a rapist who ended up killing a Missouri woman?

That's a whole new way of looking at "women's rights." Still, it would be interesting to see how a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama could hang that Dumont case all over Huckabee. The idea that criminals get released from jail is they say, "I found Jesus," would make the Republican party a laughing stock for decades.

You may be right about Obama, but I find it hard to believe that a Clinton campaign would even touch the topic of paroles.

I believe the Clinton campaign would be thrilled to have paroles be a non-issue if Huckabee is our candidate.

The problem is that people tend to put ordained preachers on pedestals. But everyone, including preachers, puts their pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else. There is an opportunity for abuse that comes with believing that you don't need to know the facts behind a criminal and that you just need to know if the criminal was born again. Problem is that we are not God and therefore we can't always tell between a true born again and a fake.

Huckabee got faked out on the Dumond case. He got faked out on illegal aliens and gave them in state tuition to make himself feel more compassionate. But that kind of attitude doesn't work when you are spending taxpayer money and are advocating that a convincted rapist be let out. It's a totally different ball game. And Huckabee struck out.

Wouldn't a Romney/Thompson ticket pull the party together?

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

And also a somewhat clear eyed political observer...McCain.

Two of the more senior folks at my firm, who have both been in the game much longer than I have, think we'll end up settling on McCain.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

However, in order for that to happen, some very specific things have to happen. First, McCain has to win NH outright. That's a dicey proposition right now, with Romney maintaining a pretty solid 15 point lead. Romney could suffer some deflation if he gets routed by Huckabee in Iowa, but not that much.

The problem for McCain is actually step 2. Where does he go from there? Right now, he's in fourth in both Michigan and South Carolina, and not close enough in either that a NH victory would propel him to victory. I think he at the very least needs to pull off winning 2 out of those 3 states to have a realistic shot, and where it all stands right now I just don't see it.

I could be wrong, though. Lord knows we've all made predictions during this season that in retrospect have looked kind of silly.

To me, I think Romney has the much clearer path, with a comfortable lead in NH, and being right in the game in both MI and SC. It's a lot more likely right now that Romney wins 2 out of those 3 than McCain does.

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

I don't have to vote until February 12th here in DC, so I can see how things shake out.

I'm a little bit terrified with regards to Romney's electability, but I'm completely sold on him being president.

If it's down to Rudy, Romney and Huckabee on 2/12, and it looks like a vote for Romney is the thing that best prevents a Huck nomination, I hope I'm enough of a grownup to cast that ballot.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

In fact, I've just had to dispense with my concern for Romney's electability. To heck with it, if he loses he loses. But at least he's a candidate that can keep the conservative movement from ripping apart at the seams. And, in the long run, that's more important for us than any one election.

I'll stick by what I've maintained lo these many months: our best shot here is Rudy...but that's predicated upon SoCons playing along to some degree.

Not only have they decided they won't do that, they're flexing their muscles with Huckabee -- who is Rudy in reverse.

With these deep divisions, I think our chances next fall are remote. But we've got to keep the coalition together or we're going to be wandering the wilderness again.

I agree, the conservative movement is more important than one election. Hillary or Obama would last only one term. I'd rather be the party that gets to say, "see I told you so," than a party without an identity.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Hillary or Obama would last only one term.

Nothing is guaranteed for sure, but if Hillary or Obama win the Presidency you can pretty safely bet that they'll win reelection.

It's exceedingly rare for a party that takes over the White House from the other to keep it less than 8 years. Even if they're doing badly after 4 years, they usually succeed in blaming it on the residual effect of the previous incumbent's mismanagement. (Not talking about incumbents losing reelection, e.g. Bush 41 after 12 years of Republican Presidency)

Every once in a while, a party gets thrown out of the White House after only 4 years there, but rare enough that you shouldn't bet on it far in advance. The last time was Jimmy Carter in 1980. How far back in history do you have to go to find another example of a party losing the White House after only 4 years?

I was thinking about the Carter administration. It was one of the worst ever. When you look at the Democratic (and I'll throw in Huckabee) platforms, they seem to be out of touch with reality. As soon as the tax cuts go away, the economy will slump, and a too quick pull-out in Iraq will be a disaster. I think most Americans would see those as democratic failures. The Bush admin. has been pretty clear on what they think will work long term in regards to these two things, and going away from that is what the democrats are running on. I don't think they'll be able to pin it on Bush or the GOP (especially with a democratic congress).
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

And it was Ronald Reagan who unseated him. Can we really be so confident that the rare kind of constellation that brought about that once-in-a-century event will occur in 2012 with a President Clinton or President Obama.

Even Reagan beating Carter wasn't a sure bet. The polls were even until Reagan KO'd Carter in the debate, subsequently surging ahead in the polls and winning in a landslide.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

______________________________
"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

Let's stop with the crap where you try to assign bizarre motivations to the comments I make. It really gets on my nerves. For one thing, it implies that I was lying when I wrote this post. For another, you're beclowning yourself with these bizarre observations. Are you claiming that you really think that McCain has a better shot at winning than Romney, and that I must be playing some sort of con if I say different? Really? Because if so, you should head on over to Intrade where the market is currently saying that Romney's got more than twice as good of a shot at winning than McCain - you could really make yourself some money! If you're being honest, you'll surely put your money where your mouth is! Or maybe you're playing some sort of con with this analysis?

If you can't comment on my analysis without ascribing bizarre motivations to what I'm saying, then don't comment on it. I've not been shy at any point during this process about saying who I support. That doesn't mean I'm out there right now saying that Romney is gonna win Iowa or Florida in some stupid effort to dupe people.

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

A man who has said he would at no point support Rudy.

Pulled perhaps the biggest sock puppetry this site has ever seen to promote the meme that Rudy would destroy the party. An idea that rather nicely plays into the first one.

Then says "So are we all willing to vote Romney to see that neither Rudy nor Huckabee happens?"

Just what motivation am I attributing to you, that you haven't embraced in spades.
______________________________
"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

In the first place, I have never once used sockpuppets. I have used aliases. Go back through RSR's diaries and through my diaries and see if if either of us have ever recommended each other's diaries, or provided "me too" comments. Further, I have no idea what the hell you are so pissed about given that I self-reported the day the Brownback campaign folded, and long before anyone ever even thought of "outing" me. Thus, in case there was any confusion, I stand completely by everything said under my alias. You might want to search and look as to whether any of the other contributors (more than half) are either currently using aliases or have used them in the past due to conflicts with work, etc.

Second, that has absolutely nothing to do with me saying that Romney has a better chance to win than does McCain. So the fact that you're bringing it up now just pretty much indicates to me that you've decided to cyberstalk my comments with these petty pot shots. Hope it's working out for you.

Then says "So are we all willing to vote Romney to see that neither Rudy nor Huckabee happens?"

Just what motivation am I attributing to you, that you haven't embraced in spades.

The motivation, genius, that you're ascribing to me is that I'm playing some sort of con when I'm telling you right out front what my interest is. I've said from the very beginning, since before the 2006 election, even, that I will not vote for pro-choice candidates. My position has not changed or altered in the slightest. And yes, I therefore have an interest in seeing Rudy not get the nomination. Again, not something I've exactly hidden from anyone at any point in time. I'm trying, however, not to let my desire to prevent that from happening allow me to support a guy who I think would be a bad President (Huckabee). Again, not something I've exactly hid to my knowledge. So when you want to come right out and tell me what sort of "con" I'm allegedly running, go right ahead and do it. Otherwise cram it.

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

I am still working on climate vs weather.

However you phrase it though its hardly upsetting and not particularly bothersome, it just is. If you want to divide your time in that manner more power to you. I have barely enough time to be me. I have never gotten the rationale behind the concept. Trying to generate a bandwagon here, seems uniquely silly.

I will note it was something you felt the need to do under an assumed name, on a website that was proxy registered (That could be just the registrar's standard practice). From that it would seem it was something that you needed or should be hidden. What should be made of that < Shrugs >

As to the con, This whole save the party by having no one vote for their choice is an anathema to me. All it does is reduce our chances in the general. We wind up with a candidate nobody is enamored of. Seems a good method of seeing that we lose. The beatdown that various sides are taking along the way is even worse.

There is much demoralization going on here and not much motivation. We need positivism to win. (Well maybe not, but its the cleanest way)
______________________________
"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

streiff, California Yankee, Bob Hahn (aka Nick Danger), Adam C (aka Doverspa), haystack, Ben (aka Augustine) and others that they are using sockpuppets.

And I said at the time that I used an alias because I wanted to promote some other candidates in the race without embarrassing my former boss. Which is pretty much the same reason loads of people use aliases, except that a lot of them do it for their current bosses. Either way, I'm not "splitting up my time," I was RSR for a grand total of about two weeks until Brownback packed it in, and he hasn't made an appearance since. Further, I promptly self-reported. So again, if you want to take a run at about half the RedState contributors then go right ahead.

I suspect that you won't however, because the real problem you have isn't with my use of aliases, but rather that I've stated in unequivocal terms that my conscience won't allow me to vote for your guy, and there's nothing you can do to change that. It's a frustrating feeling, I know, I encountered it all the time with SSB from the more - ah - enthusiastic immigration restrictionists. But try not to allow that feeling to manifest itself in the ways you have lately.

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

You call it conscience I call it tactic.

P.S. The only alternate Identities I was aware of were yours and the animal alter ego's. But what I said still stands, no matter how many identities you may create there is only one of you. How you divide your time is your affair.
______________________________
"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 would call it conscience if people kept it personal and in their heads. When it gets shouted and organized its a tactic.

I.E. Conscience is the quiet voice you hear, tactics are the bullhorn you use on others.
______________________________
"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

According to your definition, if you speak your conscience aloud, that's no longer what your conscience is dictating?

Ho-kay.

I have come to the conclusion that there is literally nothing you will not say to rationalize your way out of the ridiculous things you've been saying. I'm done with this conversation.

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

So are you saying that I secretly would only vote for Mitt Romney? And that the fact that I used to work for Sam Brownback was a trick, as was the fact that I was pro-Fred for a while, wrote a piece less than a month ago (which I linked upthread) praising McCain, and have said that I would hold my nose and vote Huck if nominated?

If you really think that what I'm saying about Rudy is some sort of "tactic" to get any particular candidate nominated, you're either not paying attention or you're calling me a liar. You could at least own up to which one it is.

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

I hardly see how its needed to have only one candidate you would vote for to go that route.

As a Matter of fact mathematically it looks like having one or more candidates you would not vote for is equivalent. Maybe I'll do the matrices.

Anywho I believe we had established what you were doing was to get Rudy not elected.

Out of curiosity, just how am I supposed to own up to a misapprehension if I am still under it ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"we'll bolt-the-party if it's Rudy" blog on October 9, and we did not know it was you. That was not disclosed until later that month, if I recall correctly. That upset some people, me included.

In the Deity's master plan for the universe, does it matter all that much? Probably not.

I don't think Joliphant was correct in calling your response a "con".

But he is correct in positing blowback (that beloved Ronulan term) from the decision of certain socons (by no means limited to you) to unleash the nuclear option (hell, why not get all the buzzwords in!)

On the plus side, I bet certain Mitt and Huck supporters will not be attracted to Global Warming with the cold draft they are feeling.

First of all, I have yet to post my first "We'll bolt the party" diary. I posted an "I won't vote for Rudy" diary. I have a hard time taking anyone who doesn't grasp the distinction seriously as a Republican activist.

Second, this was written nine days after RSR's initial diary, and the same day that the Brownback campaign ended.

Given that the people who were upset were uniformly Rudy partisans, I don't have much trouble sleeping at night.

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

BTW- I am a Republican voter who has been voting R since before you were born.

Even though Huck is probably the best guy on the one-issue horse I most frequently ride, I lived in Arkansas during his tenure and don't think he'd make nearly as good of a President as virtually anyone else in the GOP field.

And if you've been a R voter for that long, surely there has been at least one time you didn't vote for the R in a given race, either because you didn't like him, weren't motivated by either given candidate, or simply couldn't get to the polling place on election day. In that circumstance, were you "bolting the party"? No. So please don't make that assumption about me. I'll be there in the voting booth pulling the lever for Lamar Alexander and Marsha Blackburn whatever else may happen.

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

when I became eligible to vote. I will vote for our nominee in 2008. My choices are now Rudy, McCain, Fred, Mitt and Huck in that order.

I have voted R in every off year election with two exceptions:

-1978 NY Governor (I voted Right to Life as a protest vote)

-1980 Congress in Texas (first year voting there); I voted for Phil Gramm on the D line. I like to think I pushed him over the edge!

And it you're trying to build up the strength of your political party, huckaplums is not what you want as your leading food source (just as a sugarplum diet is not particular beneficial to your body).

And Rightly So!

Just going against whoever is peaking at a given time. McCain had it sown up way back when then it was rudy now its romney, tomorrow it could well be huckabee.
______________________________
"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

McCain is not in the game.

.

.

If you mean in 1994, I was: (1) 17, and (2) living in Oklahoma.

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

.

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

I have cousins that live in Nashville,TN. Fred Thompson is the one I most want to see become the next POTUS. I was asking those questions to you because you are the only Tennessean I know of at RS whose first choice for POTUS is not Fred. Tennesseans are people who have really had the opportunity to vote for Fred, so I find it informative to know their thoughts about that vote.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

That's just it. He's running as an economic populist -- and his opponent next fall will be...an economic populist.

If the economy (and related things such as taxes, entitlement spending, etc.) are issues in the race, how exactly does he follow through on his rhetoric without basically mimicking the Democrat?

This is a recipe for disaster. We don't need two economically populist parties.

Yeah, look at Romneys’ money. He earned his money legally and honestly. Why would you condemn him for working hard to become a wealthy man. His Dad was worked for Ford Mo. CO. and was a Gov. So, I hardly call Romney a Paris Hilton. He worked for his money and if more people were as goal oriented we might not have millions on welfare.

Huckabee made his money how? Taking it from church goers. Everyday church folk give money and more money to church so their preacher can drive by in his Cadi back to his mansion while the people that line the collection plates get in their Ford and go home to a PB&J. Get real! Look at the news half of these preachers are being investigated for fraud and income taxes. Yeah I am a Christian but my church does not have any paid leaders. They have jobs and serve the Lord for free!!!
Any preacher that tells you otherwise is making a career not a sacrifice to GOD! Oh and i forget about the Christian books he has written where he made hundreds of thousands off of spreading the teachings of Christ. Yeah.. that is honest.

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

I don’t think you should find another party, but perhaps you should examine the makeup, and try to understand the party that you belong.

The Republican insiders and elites control the party. They choose the nominees to a large degree by who they throw their weight behind. And of all the possible candidates for them to throw their weight behind, they chose one that picks a fight with the largest portion of the base. And they knew it would. So this (Huckabee) should be a lesson to them, in a democracy the ultimate power still rest with the people. And in the Republican Party, the base is much more socially conservative than its elites.

I actually think this battle could benefit the party in the long run. In the future, the establishment will be a little more careful with whom they pick to support, not to have another Huckabee rise up against them. And as a result, we, God willing, should have much more solid conservative candidates.

For our Party and Country, lets hope this is the case!

So history isn't much of a strong point for you?

Can you tell me how, for the majority of our party's history, and political parties in general, how were those candidates arrived at?

Guess what, conventions! Led, by these now nefarious elites.

The base is socially conservative because most social conservatives have faith. Faith was what moved the rather liberal Republican Party to form... it was Faith that no man or woman should be bought or sold as chattel.

If Huckabee is some sort of punishment social conservatives want to exact on those in the Party who don't agree with them, as seems to be your case, how do you expect to attract independents and liberal Democrats with this Punish the moderate Republican "Elites"?

I am just amazed at where we went in a week. We went from Huckabee being the upstart turned front runner. We went from what the Party needs to attract independents and Democrats to he's the guy the rank-and-file are wanting simply to punish the "elites."

As a social moderate, I have had it with all the religious talk. Yes, I want the stores to say Merry Christmas. Yes, I want the Christmas tree on Capitol Hill. But I don't hear about what Jesus would do when discussing public policy. In 2004, I had an opportunity to see GWB speak. Before he came on stage they have a Christian band entertain the crowd. Hands went up with scream of hallelujah. It felt more like a revival meeting than a political gathering. Simply unacceptable.

I'm waiting for the first comment from you that doesn't basically boil down to that.

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

About how I was driving.

I didn't have the energy "So I asked him if he had accepted Christ as his personal savior"

Oddly enough he rolled up his window and didn't want to hear anything I had to say.

Make of that what you will.
______________________________
"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

.

What happens on our roads is definite evidence of the supernatural.
______________________________
"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

.

Unfortunately... these people you don't want to hear from or people who voice this MAJOR concern for them, are a huge portion of independents.

If you want to win, you have to attract these people somehow. Making them feel uncomfortable or nervous generally isn't going to make them come on over even if they like your foreign policy positions.

Reagan was a man of faith, as was Bush. But many people were comforted by Reagan's good use of faith when the Country needed it. Some people, and a LOT of independents these days, immediately think Biblethumper when they here Bush's name, and they completely disengage from listening to him. They never were going to support him anyways.

But again, it's best to be of faith and use it as support to who you are in politics, instead of it being WHO you are in politics.

agree 100 percent.

______________________________
"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'm not terribly sure who you are calling "'one issue' voters", but in my experience, that is a misleading label applied to people who have differing priorities (usually pro-lifers). I don't know too many 'one issue' voters, but I know plenty who pick their candidates by who most match their priorities in order.

1. Paroling rapists and murderers.
2. Raising Taxes
3. End embargo on Cuba
4. Instate tuition for Illegal Immigrants.
5. Close Gitmo
etc

______________________________
"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

against school choice. check out Club for Growth and his government record. Not conservative at ALL.

He can't do anything about as president
______________________________
"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

The only area that Huck is conservative are some social issues. On everything else, he is either very wrong or very uninformed.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Re "Freedom and religion endure together or perish alone." Baloney. Authentic learning ends where faith begins. I'll take freedom. You can take religion.

50 million aborted babies and counting.

If it's Hillary vs Huckabee the SCOTUS will uphold Roe v. Wade for at least another generation. Huckabee will have no chance of appointing judges to say otherwise. Coming from Huckabee, any judicial nominee that doesn't publicly genuflect before Roe v. Wade will be so easy to smear the MSM may leave it up to the interns.

Then again, with Huckabee's naiveté on criminals and dangerous world leaders, there may not even be a Constitution in 5 to 10 years or a Republic as we know it. Rather than turning rapists and murderers loose on the public for naive reasons, he'll be turning world stage thugs with very serious weapons loose on the Republic itself.

I guess that's one way to overturn the atrocity that is Roe v. Wade.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

You'd rather see a Dem get elected than Huck....Get a clue! I'm not a one issue man, in fact i'm not sure Roe will ever be reversed BUT I do believe one of the most important roles a President has is the appointment of SC justices. Huck won't appoint an activist since he is such an staunch supporter of life. A Dem certainly will appoint a Ginsberg or a Stevens. Now your not talking 8 yrs. of difference...you are talking 20. Think about it....vote for the R in the general.

David123

I am actually surprised the liberal media has not played up his AIDS remarks moreso, and now I get it. They want him to be the nominee at this point because they can see how he would fracture the party and lose the election.

And then you'll have a D in office for 4 - 8 years and Stevens will be replaced on the SCOTUS by another activist we have to live with for another 20 years.....Get a clue.

The exact same thing will happen if Huckabee were president... but I'm sure it would only be for four years.

.

The main reason there is Huckabee hatred is that he rose so late in the race that most people already had their horses chosen. Now that he is doing better momentum-wise and for the most part poll-wise than the candidates who were "top tier" all year round they all hate him.

That's why they stoop to arguments that usually a pretty leftist would make. If I censored the name of the candidate and the names/identities of who wrote them you could swear that all this Huckabee hatred was Democrat hatred for George W Bush (ie. He's too religious, his supporters are jesus freaks, his supporters are morons, he is going to divide the electorate, etc.)

I will assume that all this name calling and personal hatred is just primary talk and that when the general comes around everyone will do the right thing and support their party's nominee as well as the rest of their ticket on state and local levels.

What many of the extremist bloggers here don't understand is that the Republican coalition includes many groups, and a significant one is evangelical Christians. The biggest mistake, as someone earlier pointed out, was the elites and bloggers assumed that they would just sit there and take it while the GOP nominates someone who does not care about them at all, especially on their core issues.

That was a big mistake given the amount of evangelicals there are in the GOP, who are now responding by supporting the ONLY candidate who DOES listen to them and DOES NOT take them for granted.

Oh, and Huckabee is a solid conservative. A few disagreements do not make him a Democrat in a Republicans clothing.

Many Republican governors also raised taxes all over the country and many Republican mayors and Alderman and other officials around the country do so to. Its the reality of having to govern by giving the people what they want as well as dealing with liberal council people and so forth.

And let's not forget.... Reagan as president raised taxes... so if some tax increases in your time governing a jurisdiction make you a Democrat or a Fiscal Liberal, Reagan was one too and probably would be decried by those who are now saying they'd rather for Hillary than for Huckabee.

I meant to say a "pretty leftist person".

Taxes were lower in the U.S. when Reagan left office than they were when he got there, he cut a lot and raised a few. Taxes in Arkansas were higher when Huckabee left office then they were when he got there. That makes Reagan at tax cutter on balance and Huckabee a tax increaser, although there are give and takes along the way. They ARE NOT one in the same when it comes to taxes.

Anyone who slams our foreign policy as an "arrogant bunker mentality", wants to talk with the Iranians so we can settle our differences the same way "we do with siblings", raised taxes and spending on balance while governor and believes the state should be active in solving societal problems is not a conservative, period!

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

It seems to me many social conservatives want government to take a proactive role in building a moral society. Whereas the fiscal conservative presumeably wants the market economy to dictate outcomes independent of government, the social conservative sees the "market trend" leading toward greater moral decay, and wants the government to step in a fortify the social fabric. ...But admitedly I'm speaking well beyond my expertise.

You're dead on. The two contradict each other because so many social conservatives believe in activist and statist social conservative government, which costs money too. It's what compassionate conservatism is, being conservative with other people's money.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

I was and am a social conservative first and foremost. However I have been "converted" to many of the ideas of fiscal conservatism, in a large part due to many of the ideas that I read on this site.

Perhaps it may be better to see the large social conservative base you have as a group of people who could be open to your ideas.