Question o' the day: What should Huckabee and Giuliani supporters in Florida do?
By Alexham Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign — Comments (139) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
O.k., I have a simple question, sportsfans: If you live in Florida, and support either Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani for president, do you stick with your man, or do you go ahead and pick between McCain and Romney?
It's a tough call, to be sure. But let's face it, either McCain or Romney is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee. So, do you go with your head or your heart?
Suffice it to say, whoever wins Florida has a huge advantage going into Super Tuesday.
I am not sure what I would do, but I am interested to hear what others have to say; especially those who live in Florida.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain's attack on Romney — Comments (51) »
Question o' the day: What should Huckabee and Giuliani supporters in Florida do? 139 Comments (0 topical, 139 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Depending on how he does, then I will think which is more important to me, Immigration or Industrial Policy. Currently it looks like immigration is the most important issue.
______________________________
"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
...if Romney wins, the MSM will frame it as a surprise victory, then go back to showing deadlocked national polls as well as how McCain does against Hillary or Obama.
If McCain wins, the media will say that McCain has wrapped up the nomination and is the prohibitive favorite to sweep Super Tuesday, even if he wins with < 30% of the vote or wins by < 2% over his closest rival.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
I am a former Guiliani and Thompson supporter. I decided two weeks ago neither would make it. I switched to McCain and will vote for him in the Florida primary.
Governor Crist and Senator Martinez agree.
Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law
Rudy and especially Thompson have a lot more in common with Mitt's positions than McCain's.
Then again, I am a conventional conservative. Nominating McCain means the Republican Party has left conservatives like me behind.
Please read Adam C's series on McCain. Read my earlier diary from last week.
McCain will keep us safe. He will have the power to govern and will use it. He has promised to secure borders first, recognizing this is what voters want. He will have two opportunities to nominate SC justices. His will be superior to Clinton or Obama choices. I believe far superior.
He will cut corporate tax rates. He will have the honeymoon to get that through Congress.
In four years, perhaps you and I can get our first choice.
Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law
McCain is less likely to keep us safe because he will let a city be bombed before he will consider waterboarding. He will close Guantanomo in order to try to appease the left-leaners of the world.
He will have the power to govern in a Dem-compromising way. His honeymoon with the press and the Dems will linger and blossom as he stiffs conservatives and gives liberals most of what they want.
If you believe he will actually secure the border first, you are gravely mistaken. The closest he will ever get to really securing the border is to arm-twist local officials to declare the border sealed so he can proceed with amnesty asap. His heart has not changed from the debacle of last summer. He is deceiving you.
The person who was the leader of compromise with Dems about the judicial situation (Gang of 14) and who repeatedly craves the approval of the press in getting along with Dems on MANY different issues is the least likely to nominate beneficial judges. Instead of fighting on principle for strict constructionist judges, he will seek the accolades of the MSM by picking a "consensus" choice. He will readily use the excuse that "this is the best we can get" because the Dems are in the majority in the Senate. Fred (and even Rudy) would have had the spine to fight and overcome on judicial nominations. Mitt will have all incentive to get his picks right. McCain will think that compromise will ensure his MSM legacy.
The country is better off with Dems promoting liberal policies and personnel with Reps strongly opposing them with conservative principles. The worst thing for this country is for the conservative party to nominate one who has and will denigrate most conservative principles.
As I see it right now, if McCain were to be the nominee, the choice in November looks like this:
Clinton vs. McCain? Four years of Clinton would "right" the Republican ship. Four years of McCain would lead the Republican Party off the cliff (totally frustrating and demoralizing much of the base). I pity the soul trying to run for House or Senate under McCain's leadership. Dead man walking in those races. House and Senate races in 2010 look interesting against Clinton (see 1994).
Obama vs. McCain? How would Bob Dole do against JFK? This matchup leads to 8 years in the wilderness. At least Romney would have a shot at attracting voters interested in changing Washington.
Either way, I am strongly leaning toward voting against McCain - even in the general.
The thought that McCain will keep conservatives and be attractive to cross-overs is pure folly. The base will be gone (see 2006).
All need be done is to go back through the last 20 years and see how much poor legislation has been passed because Republican presidents not committed to conservative principles arm-twisted Rs in Congress in the name of 'party unity'.
If someone wants to vote for McCain because they are a moderate/liberal in philosophy, then by all means do so. But looking at McCain's record for the past 7 years, we conservatives are delusional IMHO if we think that he will listen to us or promulgate our ideas. 2010 will be a disaster
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
If the country is going to be led down the liberal primrose path, I certainly don't want the Republican Party to get the blame for the consequences. I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary over McCain, confident that conservatives will be back in the next cycle.
and would add that one of my big fears about a McCain candidacy (and presidency) is Huckabee as the VP pick. If McCain does stick to a one-term pledge, we'd be looking at Huckabee as the presumptive GOP nominee in 2012. I'm not an idealogue, by any means, and have mostly been a staunch party supporter, but if the ticket is McCain-Huckabee, I'll vote third party or write-in knowing it's a vote for the dems.
McCain has historically been less of a tax cutter than Rudy or Mitt.
McCain is more likely to avoid confrontration with democrats, which means that compromising = capitulation, not negotiation (see McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc).
McCain, who always seems to be willing to take President Bush on from the left, was silent on the Harriot Meyers Supreme Court pick
Given Fred's friendship with McCain, Fred's assessment of McCain's candidacy was a pro-McCain on the margins as it could be (all ambiguity interpretted in favor of McCain), and Fred still decided to run for President.
But what do you mean by a "conventional conservative."
I also wonder why virtually every person on this site believes that either they individually or we collectively have been granted the right to define conservatism and pontificate on the "acceptableness" of each candidate in terms of that definition (in other words, who counts as a "real conservative").
Politics is not static. The reality in this cycle is that people are not looking for Goldwater conservatism, or even Reagnite conservatism. They seem to be calling for something a little different, and a little less confrontational. The Party is not "leaving behind" anybody just out of pique, or a disinterest in those ideas. The Party is responding to an electoral reality in which people seem to want everybody to "just get along." This is probably why McCain does so well in general election polling - he has a track record of being willing to work with even the most odious on the other side to get most of a loaf.
We seem to be insisting that our candidates declare war on the Democrats and refuse to compromise at all. I know that Democrats are not good at giving anything to get what they want, but that doesn't excuse an unwillingness on our part. Even Ronald Reagan worked with Democrats like Tip O'Neill to get most of what he wanted. He didn't go through 8 years with an "all or nothing" attitude about every single issue in the book. I'm not sure he'd meet the standards we're setting for our present batch of candidates.
The Party is not equal to the Movement. We are associated entities, most of the time in agreement, mostly heading in the same direction. But the ultimate object of the Party is to win elections - not to abide faithfully the Movement through all situations. I cannot fault people in the Party for wanting to win and being willing to make some concessions in the short-term to do it. The question for me: is the Movement willing to accept the idea of compromise in the short-term for its own long-term success. McCain might not advance the ball, but, for the most part, he's not going to lose yardage. We can be sure that, any gain that the Movement has made in the last 8 years (or 14 years going back to 1994) will be totally and completed reversed and obliterated. And so come 2012, even if we were to win back control, we would spend 4 years just trying to get back to the point we're at today. I'd rather, basically, stand pat for a while then lose ground in the interest of being pure when such purity is not likely to be rewarded.
but he did so from a view point of moving forward with conservative policies.
In recent years (since the government shut down?), compromise for conservatives is equivalent to capitulation.
What conservative policy elements where in No Child Left Behind? Campaign Finance Reform? Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? Immigration Reform.
Each of these policies, in their totality, was at least 90% liberalism.
No vouches in NCLB.
CFR--total disaster.
Prescription Drugs---expansion of HSA. Maybe the best of the bunch.
Immigration--total disaster (note the McCain trend, see CFR above).
Reagan made compromises, but he actually negotiated so that the ball was moved forward. Ever since the shutdown, conservatices don't seem to be very good negotiators.
"...people are not looking for Goldwater conservatism, or even Reagnite conservatism."
I think a lot of people are looking for Goldwater conservatism and we certainly need the kind of safety a Reagan-esque candidate would provide. The current republican leadership may want to just get along, but that is certainly not what is best for this country, and I think most republicans know that.
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George S. Patton
What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul?...
Your post is the appeasement mentality of Bob Michael and Boob Dole that kept us out of the majority for 40 years. What's the point of winning elections if all you plan to do is apease the left when you get there.
When the Republican party runs on Conservative principle unapologetically....WE WIN!!! Look at 1980, 2004 and 1994. I can't think of any election when we ran a more ideological campaign and we were richly rewarded. Contrast that with 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2006 when Republicans tried to act like Democrats....We lost our shirts and we're still marching leftward for 2008....AAAAARRRRGGG!!!
None of the above in 2008!!!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
I'll go to hell if I vote for Rudy, McCain, or Romney??
Please tell me that's not what you meant when you said this:
What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul?...
I meant if you compromise your principles and appease your enemies just so you can say you win!
As for, am I saying you are "going to hell?"....your ignorance is typical!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
and that if Americans were to stick to the principles of what makes America great, this country could become even greater.
That being said, staying home in November makes not sense.
I am disatisfied with crop of Presidential candidates. In particular, I am suspicious of McCain. But for me to sit out in November is to stand by and do nothing when there is still a clear difference between the candidates.
For example, Democratic control of the White House and the Congress could result in tax payer funded abortion. No matter how much apathy I have for McCain, I know he will opposed tax-payer funded abortions.
Vote for principle in the primary. Vote for the Republican candidate in November.
John Edwards may have the game down. This year, especially on our side, the real power player may not be the guy in the lead, it may be the guy in 3rd or 4th who has a chunk of delegates that could be encouraged to vote for another candidate.
Feb. 5th is still shaping up to be a broken up mess with Huckabee looking like he'll take a couple of states, or a nice number of delegates even if he fails to win anything. Giuliani still has a chance for some delegates. Neither Huck nor Rudy looks to be in a position to win the nomination at this stage. But at this pace I'm not sure that either Romney or McCain has the ability to pull away on Feb. 5th and that means that we're more likely to see those 3rd and 4th place delegate counts become relevant to the top 2.
Rudy and Huck might both still achieve the status of kingmaker by having just enough strength to deny anybody else the outright victory without their support.
At this stage then, I'm not sure that Huck/Rudy supporters need to engage in strategic voting for purposes of stopping an unacceptable alternative. Of course, it also assumes that Huck/Rudy supporters would be sufficiently content with Romney or McCain to make them supportable in the general.
I was a Thompson supporter, turned to Giuliani after Fred dropped out, but will vote for Romney tomorrow. Voting for anyone other than McCain or Romney is kind of like betting on the Packers in the Super Bowl.
McCain's recent attacks on Romney, which everyone from NRO to CNN to Times to the New York Times has now called dishonest, at best, should give all his supporters pause. He's showing his true colors. This man is not someone I will be able to pull the lever for in a general election, should he win the primary. I'm a Fredhead turned Romney supporter, so I can't really answer the question of the post; but I would urge anyone who's still up in the air about how to vote to remember a few things about McCain: McCain-Feingold (the biggest assault on free speech since George III), his amnesty plan (which he said over the weekend he would STILL sign into law should it come across his desk as president), his opposition to the Bush tax cuts (which, on his reasons for opposing them, he has also been very dishonest about: He opposed them for the same reasons as the Democrats), McCain-Lieberman (which would cause a massive hike in gas prices), the environment, the Gang of 14, and on and on. He is establishment. He is Washington. He is mean and vindictive. And he has been trending left for at least ten years now. Go for the candidate, who, although he, too, has changed directions on a couple of issues, has at least lurched to the right. On life, immigration, the economy, and every other issue that's important to Republicans, choose Romney.
They will vote for McCain, putting us on the path for victory in November.
As many will probably do. As a vote for Giuliani or Huckabee looks like a wasted vote look for the support of these candidates to decrease (this is what happened in the Dem South Carolina race. As Edwards looked more and more like a has been his vote disappeared.) One can assume that given the economic pitches of Rudy and Huck that their supporters are primarily concerned by economic matters and that should help Romney.
I am at the point to wonder if I will be forced to vote a split ticket this year, since McCain and Huckabee are not acceptable to me.
If you back Giuliani, you have to vote for him. If Giuliani does not sweep Florida, it's over for him.
If you back Huckabee, you can't let McCain win now, so you probably vote Romney.
I was a Giuliani guy. Still think he'd be a strong nominee and a good President despite my disagreements with him on some issues.
The problem is I just don't see him pulling out a win in Florida, and even if he did, I tend to doubt that'd be enough for him.
I think a vote for McCain is wiser, since it keeps Romney from winning, as I bet McCain & Giuliani will have a lot of overlap on National Defense.
This is do or die for Rudy. If he doesn't make it in FL, I'll vote McCain in NY on 2/5 - but if I was voting in FL I'd make that last stand for Rudy and see if he can turn it around.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I should have made it clear that voting for Rudy was not really an option. :)
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
The thing that's very strange about Florida is how many people have already voted. I can't tell if the current polls are of those who have voted, or have yet to vote. If more than half the state voted over the last four weeks, it makes it very hard to predict. There could be, for example, a well of Giuliani votes from early in the month. There could be a residual Huckaboom. There could be a McCain surge that reflects post-New Hampshire euphoria. And Mitt is certainly closing strong. So while the R polls have proven pretty reliable this season, there is potential for real wierdness tomorrow, and those who want to urge voters to abandon their candidates for one of the purported "frontrunners" might be jumping the gun.
Don't be surprised to see Giuliani get his share of votes that aren't showing up in the polls. I'm a journalist in Lee County, a deep red county with GOP voters outnumbering Dems 2-1. But turnout is more than 10 percent ALREADY.
The property tax amendment is getting people to the polls. Many voted early or absentee and I would not be shocked to see Thompson with 3-5 percent of the vote and Rudy with 3-5 percent more in the returns than what is showing up in the polls.
That being said, the McCain rally in Fort Myers attracted a TON of people, but many are actually independent and Dem crossovers... including a number of former Obama guys and gals. So they don't count in terms of the vote.
It truly is as tight as it gets in FL right now. Don't be shocked to see the Crist and Martinez endorsements as the difference between Romney and McCain.
By the way, Mitt got my vote, as well as the votes of my wife, my parents and in-laws.
-------
Proof that not everyone in the mainstream media is a bleeding heart.
If you are a Rudi supporter you should vote for him. Why vote for anyone else? No one knows how the Florida primary will go and I for one think voting for McCain or Romney just because they may win the Republican nomination is a vote taken away from your candidate and that is a shame.
I for one will vote for who I believe is the best candidate no matter what the polls are saying.
Arel
He's mccain without the war record and a real conservative on fiscal issues and judicial appointments by comparison to mccain.
there are many that say Rudi is already done, but you at least have to vote for him thru super tuesday.
maybe he does win independents, moderates and put states in play that thompson and huckabee would not(most likely romney too).
yes, it's a sad state when you have to choose the clear moderate over a GOP senator with years of conservative experience, but i know i'm not alone when wondering just how far the US falls behind the illegal immigration battle, conservative judge appointments and energy independence because of global warming. These issues are certainly a lot bigger than whatever social issues anyone has with Rudi.
And Huck is out, he cant compete nationally at all. Put his vote somewhere else.
if you support him.
That said, the winner of Florida is going to be a prohibitive favorite, and here's why. If McCain wins, he is going to win in Rudy country (NY, NJ, CT) while Huckabee is going to capture a bunch of votes and even a few victories in the South. That will leave Romney with a very difficult path to picking up the delegates he needs to win the nomination.
If Romney wins, I would expect McCain's position to fall apart very fast, while Romney would zoom past both Huckabee and McCain just about everywhere except NY, NJ, CT, and AZ.
And if Rudy pulls off the greatest upset since Truman beat Dewey, he would race to the front of the pack.
But Florida is the crucial state of 2008, and I think it has a better claim to selecting the nominee than any of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
If not for the SCOTUS, I might reluctantly agree that a Hillary! administration would help right our ship.
But Hillary! would appoint Ruth Bader Ginsberg type justices. That endures far beyond her presidency.
McCain might be unpredictable, most likely appointing Alito's or O'Connors, but possibly a Souter. It's a gamble, but as they say in Vegas, you have to play to win.
With Hillary! we aren't even playing -- we're just forfeiting.
Don't let the media and the polls tell you who to vote for.
If you like Rudy best, vote for him. Same if you like Mike. Fred supporters are the only ones who should be looking at the other candidates at this point, since Fred has officially dropped out.
The media wants it to be a 2-man race, because that's the only kind of race they know how to cover. Don't let their bias tell you who to vote for.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
for several days and have decided to stick with Rudy. I still believe that he will be both our best candidate and best president (not always the same thing). Polls have been wrong far too often just to abandon the guy I want to vote for to vote for a guy I can tolerate based upon their say so.
A win or good strong showing in Florida can put him right back in the race - how often have we been told that Romney was finished: after both Iowa and NH the media had him done.
Either way I will be ecstatic when tomorrow is over and the robo calls have ended. We literally have been getting 5-8 calls per day for the last week. It's beyond annoying.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
on what you want to accomplish.
If you want your vote to play a part in selecting the actual nominee, vote McCain or Romney. Those 2 have the most viable path to victory.
If you want to position your candidate to influence the platform and ticket at the Convention, vote Rudy or Huck.
All are legitimate choices. It's your vote.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
If Rudy wins it's still a three-way race going into Super Tuesday.
I'd hate to lose my ringside seat for all the knife fights around here. :-)
I'll vote for Mitt in the general with no problem but Rudy's my choice now (he's meaner and tougher and I can live with his less conservative policies since he's promised the right nominees for SCOTUS). I want Rudy in the race on super Tuesday!
But voting based on who you think can win is the wrong reason to choose them. Right now, the polls (which have been wildly inaccurate and have fluctuated on a daily basis over the last two months) are telling you that only McCain or Romney can win in Florida. But they are NOT a reason you should change your vote.
Vote for the person you believe would do the best job -- who knows, if everyone in Florida did that, you might end up with a surprise winner...
I mean, I'm a McCain man myself, but I've got a big soft spot for Rudy, and I kinda don't want him to drop out after FL. So if we could just get the Huck folks to back the Rudy folks...
...yeah, that's a marriage that ain't gonna work. But a guy can dream.
It's Huck or a blank ballot for me in the general election
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Insist on a candidate who only appeals to one section of the party, and if he doesn't make it, make sure that the President is not a social conservative.
Very noble of you.
party. And is a close second within that section to the Mormon guy.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The last internal on a FL poll I saw had McCain ahead with "white, born again evangelicals" although it was close.
McCain 30
Romney 28
Hucka 23
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
that Huck got about 30% of the evangelical vote in the primaries so far and Romney had slightly more.
Yours is the first I've seen of evangelical projections in FL. I'm surprised Huck is down so far (but I'm quite happy about it!). Looks like he's outside the MOE v both M&R.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm sure all the "I'm sitting this election" out social conservatives will be able to proudly say that they had nothing to do with this.
Folks, we need a coalition to prevail. If you don't like taking a back seat to the other legs of the stool, don't insist that other folks a back seat on your bus.
Huckabee and Rudy set the stage for Mitt and Romney---what is a FredHead to do?
We've been told for years that we need to shut up and toe the party line, well...I've done that for Ford, Dole and GHW Bush, and will not do so again.
McCain is a RINO, Romney is a RINO and Rudy is a RINO...I'm sticking with Huck because he's as conservative as anyone else in the race and supports the issues I care about most!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Did you ever consider that if you're calling everyone but yourself a RiNO, that maybe you're the RiNO?
Boob Dole was elected in 1996? Ford was reelected in 1976, (He wasn't even elected in the first place, he was appointed by a Democrat Congress). Bush 1 was reelected in 1992?
Maybe you should pull your head out and check your history!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
This was directed at JSobieski
Boob Dole was elected in 1996? Ford was reelected in 1976, (He wasn't even elected in the first place, he was appointed by a Democrat Congress). Bush 1 was reelected in 1992?
Maybe you should pull your head out and check your history!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
conservatives.
Check my history? The point is that compromise candidates often win the nomination. Contrary to your assertions, social conservatices do not always get the short end of the stick. Fiscal conservatives have it even worse.
By the way, Bob is spelled B-o-b
of elected. You should have spelled "Bob" correctly.
How about addressing the point?
Or do you want to make a joke about staying at a Holiday Inn Express last night, in classic Huckabee fashion?
How about you stop calling the man "Boob." It's not a typo because you have done it more than once. Whatever you think of his run in 1996, the guy sacrificed a lot for his country in WWII and deserves our respect.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Ford, Bush I, Dole, and Bush II were elected.
Lets be honest, George W. Bush has been a loyal social conservative. What has he done for fiscal conservatives? Besides some early tax cuts---nothing.
So before you feel like social conservatives are getting the short end of the stick, take a look around.
McCain supporters in Florida should vote for Romney!
That way... well, I don't know, but I've seen every other combination of these so this has to make sense somehow.
I get saddened to see people try to make you give up your vote for your candidate just because they are trying to tell you that he cannot win.
The GOP in general is not looking good and either McCain or Romney would both lose big in the general election. Especially Romney. Does that mean that we should vote democrat because republicans don't have much of a chance?
Romney can depend on his money for this, not voters.
And it is your choice what to do about McCain.
And I'm also sick of hearing about how people think Mike Huckabee is trying to be VP for McCain. Great if he is but I doubt it. And if there is any candidate that McCain owes a VP position to it is Fred Thompson for giving McCain SC by taking votes away from Mike Huckabee. If it weren't for Fred Thompson then McCain would not have won SC and so far would have only won NH, and this probably would have made his poll numbers and support drop in florida too. So McCain is where he is at right now mostly because of Fred Thompson's help.
Atleast in this Primary we have uncovered the fact that we have some serious disagreements about politics, and really don't have any business being in the same party.
I am a social conservative. I really believe that abortion has ended over 40 millions lives. I think that to consider money as an equal issue to this is an outrage. I also believe that marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman, and I believe all the people who have downplayed this and not given it their attention are going to come to realize that they were wrong not to make this a major issue. You will see, especially if the democrats gain absolute power. I believe in the working class people, and think that we should not carry the water for big business and for elites. The drug companies here make huge profits off of sick and dying people, and yes I think that is sick. Often times they make big profits off of people who can't afford their medicine, but what are they going to do? Where are they going to go? I don't mind if the drug companies make a middle class income, I mean you do have to make some money, but it doesn't need to be a multi-trillion dollar profits business. Corruption... and greed is basically what I see it as.
You however probably disagree with me, and thats fine.
But just remember that I am not the only normally GOP voting social conservative who feels this way and has been highly insulted, betrayed, and alienated by the establishment during this Primary season.
Good luck. Feel free to return if you change your mind. You can't miss us. We're the big tent with the picture of Reagan on it.
You and your tent are to my left.
And as far as your Reagan goes, I believe he once said I didn't leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me.
Now we can say the same thing of republicans.
President. The pro-life movement is winning! Why do you want to throw a monkey wrench in it? Don't you want to stop abortions? Or would you rather stomp your feet like a teenager?
But as far as the republicans helping us goes, how are we winning?
What have they done?
Remember that they had the house, the senate and the Presidency.
It has done nothing but drop. Something must be working.
______________________________
"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
a socon -- and then you went into that liberal tripe about big business, elites and the dreaded drug companies. Too bad, you almost had me convinced, Moby.
class envy, greedy businessmen, evil drug companies -- you ARE in fact correct, you do NOT belong in this party.
then just remember that your republican party is no longer a party able to appeal to social conservatives.
Republicans have failed us.
Unless Mike Huckabee is the nominee I will never vote for any other the other republican candidates.
Wake up call republicans. Wake up call. You have alienated millions of former supporters.
You have chosen money over morals and values.
Your party is DOOMED. And it will be justice to see the democrats take absolute power, and even though you will never stop blaming us for it, you can rest assured that it was your party's fault.
Then why are you so intent on destroying the coalition that can actually achieve your aims.
I am a social conservative. Abortion is wrong---I know that intellectually as well as emotionally.
What you are doing is throwing other parts of the coalition under the bus.
You demand 100% loyalty from others, while overing none from yourself.
If you want to stop the social conservative agenda in its tracks--do exactly what you are doing.
(1) Demand that your first choice be nominated at the expense of anyone else.
(2) Make sure that your first choice is actually the last choice of others
(3) Show no respect for the other parts of the coalition while complaining that your views receive short shrift
We need to stay unified. There were unity candidates available. Unfortunately, many social conservatives told everyone else to sit down and shut up in picking Huckabee.
Sorry, but that it is the truth.
When my fiscal conservative brethren tried to foist Rudy on us, I stood up for social conservatives. Rudy was far more respectful of pro-life than Huckabee is of free market capitalism.
If you want to keep abortion legal---make sure you split up the coalition.
Republicans had absolute power. They didn't get much done. They have given us some conservative judges but they also gave us liberal judges.
You do realize that Republicans voted Ginsburg in when they could have voted her out, don't you?
Look at the record. They voted her in by vast majority.
All in all, at the end of the day, Republicans have given us more, much more liberal judges than they have conservative judges.
They haven't done much else either, maybe the bare minium, but not even that really.
Like I have said before and will say again, nothing has hurt the social conservative cause more than carrying the water for them.
FDR. If you can't see that--if you honestly can't see that we are slowly inching forward to make progress--then you are lost.
Did Bob Dole campaign saying Roe should be reversed?
Did Gerald Ford?
In this campaign, most of the candidates support reversing Roe v Wade. People like Fred have consistently (several decades) said the case was crap.
But you and others had to pick the guy who sounded the most like Jimmy Carter, the guy who brought on all sorts of foreign policy disasters and economic ruin because he was 100% on your primary issue.
Nobody gets their way on all issues. I agree that the Republican party needs to be a pro-life party. I also agree with people who say that the Republican party needs to be for free trade, lower taxes, and a strong defense.
If you think free markets and lower taxes means carrying water for "big business" you are mistaken. Drug companies in the US fund the research for the entire globe. You think its bad that they make profits? Ban the profits, and see what kind of drugs are discovered----there won't be any.
Do you like working for free? How about you work and have some outside entity (government or otehrwise) decide that yuo should should work just as hard for say 50% of your current pay. You don't like that proposition? How about I call you greedy.
I am a social conservative, who is also generally conservative. I feel that social conservatices have betrayed the rest of the coalition by demanding 100% of what they want even though that candidate is the bottom of the list for all other issues.
Coalitions require some accommodation to the other coalition partners. You feel insulted--but how should a free market conservative feel about Huckabee?
You get to trash druge companies, call them greedy, i.e. use the langauge of the left to criticize conservatives----but if a Rudy-type where to say something about the people who are pro-life-----look out.
Huckabee has done more than anyone to break up the Reagan coalition. This hurts the social conservative movement as much as anyone. You could have sought a candidate who was #1 or #2 on everyone's issue. Instead, you now feel bitter ---- and are going to get someone who is #3, #4, or #5 on your primary concerns.
Who is a second class citizen in this party? I used to think it was social conservatives. After this election cycle, I think it is the economic conservatives.
Rudy is more respectful of pro-life voters than Huckabee is of pro-market voters.
Thanks to instance by Huckabeel voters that they not settle for their #2 on social issues (Thompson), they are now going to get far worse.
If you to start a pro-life party so that Hillary can pass tax payer funded abortions, make sure you break up the coalition further.
I am saddened by some of my evangelical brothers and sisters who don't seem to understand that these three legs are interconnected.
I am driven to the point of insanity by some of my pro-life associates who refuse to vote for a candidate unless they get every single aspect of the pro-life agenda. I have had friends who will not vote for a candidate who believes in banning abortions in all cases except rape, incest and the life of the mother who is running against a lib who believes in abortions up to and including partial birth. We're not going to vote someone who will help us get rid of 99% of the abortions because he won't get the last 1%. I'm sorry, I just don't get that.
I can't abide Mike Huckabee because he is virtually absent on the other two legs of the stool, and woefully naive on foreign policy.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
The message from the GOP to the social conservatives is keep settling for less and less.
We don't have to be any more than just a little prolife because the other side is not at all, is their cry.
You have to vote for us anyways, you must is their cry.
Morals and values is only one leg of the stool, failed economic policies are just as important is their cry.
Sorry but if you think that failed economic policies are just as important as the prolife cause, then your not really prolife.
They are going to lose big in 2008 and the democrats will gain absolute power, and when that happens they will blame us insted of accepting responsibility for THEIR failure, not ours.
We will not have been defeated by the democrats, we will have been defeated by republicans who betrayed us.
we get our first choice, even if he is your last choice, and we don't care at all about your issues.
I care about pro-life.
I care about the war against Islamo-Facism.
I care about the economic health of the country, which is what provides us with the strength to do many great things.
You and others a throwing a fit because you don't get your #1 choice.
You and others like you are going to result in Hillary Clinton signing a bill to provide for tax payer abortions.
I am trying to save this coalition. On our own, we are all in trouble. Together, we can pull it off.
Nobody gets a guarantee of their #1 pick, especially when that #1 is not even in the top #3 for the others.
You are betraying the movement because you cannot control your pride.
You still haven't responded to any of my points.
Where is all of this #2,#3 stuff you are talking about?
I'm disgusted with Fred Thompson, he was never my second choice. Mitt Romney doesn't seem trustable, his attacks don't help, money is esteemed way too high, he can depend on his money insted of my vote. John McCain has been an antagonist against us, and his main issue is his support of the "100 years war".
I'm prideful? Are you prideful for not voting for Hillary Clinton?
Have you stopped to think that maybe we don't deserve to win? When we won in 2004 I felt that we should be greatful and not prideful. All the fake conservative talk shows were gloating and boasting and acting about as prideful as possible.
And what did we do with it?
Spending, corruption.. then accuse the social conservatives to be the ones to blame for losing in 2006, and say that we need to get more to the left, which is exactly what they did.
But if Fred was not a #2 pick, then you are saying it is all or nothing for you. Huckabee or nobody else. What about Tancredo or Duncan?
If Fred (who has consistently wanted to overturn Roe) is not a viable unity candidate from your perspective, then you clearly want the democrats to win and institute pro-abortion policies.
I agree with you about 2004. Do you agree with me that we want to reduce the number of abortions?
Explain how breaking up the Reagan coalition, insulting the fiscal conservatives, and refusing to even consider a candidate endorsed by NRTL is acting in good faith to try to facilitate social conservative ends.
Social conservatices were not blamed in 2006. Pro-life (Casey) and social moderate democrats tipped the balance. People blamed the war and the government spending.
We don't "deserve to win." Mankind on our own deserves the wages of sin---which is death. However, God is merciful and we manage to continue to live.
Are you more interested in punishing Republicans for bad behavior or continuining to make progress on the pro-life front?
Don't doubt that we face the prospect of tax-payer funded abortions if the election goes badly.
I would have been proud to vote for him.
I don't like Fred Thompson because he betrayed social conservatives and tried to make failed economic policies and failed foreign policies in front of social conservative morals and values.
I actually considered supporting Fred at first, but then I saw how he was and all of his attacks against us. You don't call anyone who is strongly prolife a liberal. Never.
You are a good conservative and probably really believe that these guys would be good on our issues. I just disagree about that part. I think that they have failed us and that during this Primary we have seen that they are actually against us. I didn't come to this conclusion easily. I lost a lot of sleep. Now I just tell it like it is.
and I agree that Huckabee is a prolife liberal.
There are prolife liberals out there.
Senator Casey from Penn is a prolife liberal.
Jimmy Carter was a prolife liberal before he was President.
Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, and Dick Gephardt where each prolife liberals before becoming prochoise liberals on the national stage
Prolife is A conservative position but it is only one position of many that makes someone conservative in the Kirk/Reagan/Goldwater sense.
Fred is a mainstream economic conservative as well. Free markets, limited government, push government policies to the local level.
We do disagree---but this disagreement has long term consequences, so we need to work things out.
conservatives.
ANd make sure the link is from a conservative or at least mainstream republican. No citing Chris Matthews
A republican named Spector said we need to move further left after 2006 and yes there were republicans who agreed.
even the MSM didn't believe that analysis. A prolife Democrat won the Senate seat in Spector's state.
But if you are intent on (1) not supporting anybody elses issues; and (2) only supporting a person who is your first choice,, then the coalition will come apart.
Why do you want to increase the number of abortions in this country?
Why are you so eager to destroy the coalition that is making some real progress on this point and is on the verge of a potential reversal of Roe?
Pride?
Anger?
Bitterness?
You act as if others in the coalition do not make sacrifices. Bush is more of an economic disappointment than he is a social disappointment.
But of course, you aren't interested in caring about anyone else's point of view. You are tired of being "stereotyped". Guess what, being conservative means you take crap from liberals. I take crap for being pro-life in some circles---doesn't bother me in the least.
It pretty much sums up how the establishment has treated social conservatives.
Like a person taking hostages.
They try to tell you that they have the prolife cause held hostage. If you don't vote for them, the prolife cause is going to get it.
The same with everything else to.
As far as taking heat goes, I'm taking plenty of heat for standing up for social conservatives. I'm regarded as the bad guy. For standing up for social conservatives.
to fiscal and national security conservatives?
Can't you see what you are doing is treating everyone else like second class citizens.
Rudy is more respectful of pro-life than you or Huckabee are of capitalism.
I believe you have done more to discredit single issue voters than anyone else I know.
Bravo, well done TNsocialconservative.
______________________________
"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're going to storm off in a huff if we don't nominate the Pastor? What exactly do social conservatives have to complain about? (I too am a social conservative, BTW).
Bush has delivered on every single major issue socons care about. Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS should be enough to please even the staunchest culture warriors.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I'm not pro-life. I can't even begin to tell you how offensive and judgemental that is. I have poured my life, my time and my financial resources into the pro-life cause and for you to call into question my dedication to life is reprehensible (in fact its absolutest like you who refuse to see ANY other position than your own that gives parts of the pro-life movement the 'intolerant' label)
Secondly, if you will reread my post I didn't say it was more important, I SAID THEY WERE INTERCONNECTED (sorry for yelling but apparently when I said it in a nice voice you didn't hear me). I'd explain that to you but that would require a depth of insight and analysis that apparently you don't have.
Pro-life conservatives got two solid Supreme Court justices and a scad of strict constructist lower court judges (and would have gotten more had McCain not thrown a bunch under the bus with his Gang of 14 deal). The DefCons got steadfastness on the GWOT. The fiscons didn't get diddly squat pooh on fiscal restraint. They didn't even get kissed.
You may want to look at the big picture sometime. (and yeah, I'm hacked)
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
But when a small subset of Social Conservatives such as TN start to talk about how others aren't Social Conservatives it seems the word does not mean what most think it to. When they use it, it seems to mean fundamentalist.
If I am wrong apologies now, but that certainly does seem to be the case. That for them if the candidate is not of a particular stripe, there is nothing they can do for the cause that mitigates that.
______________________________
"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 would appear that some pro-lifers think that by abandoning the other two legs of the stool, they will become more popular.
Little do they realize that liberalism has few principles--the further from conservativism one gets, the more "everything goes".
They seem to be absolutists that aren't satisfied unless they get 100% of the loaf. I understand that at some point in time if you feel like your not getting even half a loaf that maybe it's time to sit it out (I'm wrestling with that with McCain right now) but this all or nothing gig is beyond my grasp.
(btw--have been meaning to tell you how much I love your Paine quote. 'Tis a beauty)
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Great, so now we are not even called social conservative.
Well, what is a social conservative then?
My guess is that you don't know what the word means because you aren't one.
Geez--you are looking to be a victim, aren't you?
Anyway, I hope you e-mail me. I configured my account to accept e-mail.
God Bless.
Its real obvious that for some people it means things it doesn't for 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
So that would mean just as important?
BTW Republicans gave us Ginsburg, check their voting record on her.
And fiscal conservatives got their Enron and their Abramoff.
understanding of man, God, and the nature of creation. Nobody is saying that money is as important as life. We need to all things well, and factors interreate. If we don't handle national security well for example, then outside forces will make many decisions for us.
I agree voting for Ginsburg was a travesty. However, fiscal conservatives did not cause Enron or Abramoff.
Abramoff happened because our fiscal policies were not conservative enough---that is what causes companies to lobby the government so intensely. Everybody wants to fight for an odd tax break there, here, and etc.
Enron was also driven by bad tax policy. Corporations have a disincentive to pay dividends and an incentive to re-invest profits. This makes it easier for fraud to occur.
Conservative free market principles if enacted more fully would avoid those problems. Fred Thompson understands that. Huckabee does not.
"No--it means that conservative policies come from a common
understanding of man, God, and the nature of creation"
You may have saved me from a myocardial infarction. It does no good to have good social policy if the Goths are at the gates. One cannot keep the Goths at bay if there is no money with which to do it. The love of money is the root of all evil so one must have a capitalistic system built on common morality which has at its base respect for the weakest among us--the unborn and the infirm.
But hey, what do I know. I've apparently given up my 20+ year membership in the National Right to Life organization.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
You are just going to continue to blame us for this.
Open up your eyes and read what I am saying.
Our causes has been hurt more by carrying the water for big business then it has by anything else.
I've been stereotyped many times as being for big money and for greed because I normally vote republican.
So we have had to carry the water for big money corrupt republicans.
That rather if you want to face it or not has hurt the social conservative cause horribly.
So go on, keep blaming us for not supporting your candidate which wants to put money first. See how far it gets you, blaming a large voting block for standing up for itself.
If you've been stereotyped------stand up for the truth.
You don't think there are fiscal conservatives who feel stereotyped by association with pro-lifers?
You don't think that in states like NY or California there aren't fiscal conservatives who feel like they carry our water?
George W has treated social conservatices far better than fiscal conservatives. Can you possibly deny that fact?
What have fiscal conservatives have to show for the last 4 years?
Fiscal conservatives have the republicans who claim to be fiscal conservative. The ones who have increased spending to an all time high. Enron conservatives, Abramoff conservatives.
If they were really fiscal conservatives they would support the fairtax.
The idea that big money and big business should get all of the benefits because they will create new jobs doesn't work, and history has proven it to be a horrible, possibly well meaning but none the less horrible idea.
Big business sold jobs overseas insted of creating more. That is just factual history.
Most jobs come from small business.
I am a small business man. I consider the Republican party to be the party of small business.
I support the Fair Tax, and many other types of tax reform.
Of course, the Fair Tax requires a Constitutional Amendment, so it is the hardest reform to implement.
Huckabee has no credibility on the tax issue with 80% of the party just as Rudy has no credibility on judges with 80% of the party.
Rudy is more respectful of pro-lifers than Huckabee is to small or large business. When people start raising taxes to "raise hope"---watch out.
Their view of capitalism is more like communism in regard to a small elite class ruling over peasent workers.
It didn't start out this way. America was capitalist well before the industial monopolies came. People were farmers, they were their own boss, they built towns and villages and schools and learned trades. There were no lobbyists.
I'm not saying it was perfect but their version of captialism is more of the true version.
I don't call corrupt big businesses captialism. Watch the movie Erin Brockovich. Do you really want to call that capitalism?
I operate a small business, so I can appreciate the vision that you appreciate.
It takes billions of dollars in capital to do certain things. Research new drugs, make cars, build faster computer chips, get oil out of the ground, get coal out of the ground, etc.
I dislike lobyists too---but free speech is part of the bill of rights.
That movie twisted the facts pretty good. Lots of lawyers use people to extort large fees. The science is quite shaky.
This country literally has millions of millionaires. We are not run by a small group.
who castigate Huckabee as SoCon haters is primarily for one reason:
1. Many SoCon's believe Huckabee's record has been deliberately distorted in comparison to other candidates. If this belief is true (the reasoning goes) then the likely reason for this distortion is his social conservatism and attachment to evangelicals.
The above belief is bolstered by two things. First the suspicion on the part of SoCons that Republican bloggers and Media types are primarily FisCon's or DefCons first and SoCons second (at best). From the perspective of SoCons you must be SoCon first.
Second, the belief is bolstered by a long held view of SoCons that the Republican establishment largely favors political expediency over principles. Thus SoCons hold a hidden concern that leaders who do not seem authentically SoCon are pandering to them.
These reasons and beliefs may not be entirely relevant nor accurate but they are there nonetheless.
social conservatives were pandered to and then taken for granted in the past. In most years, you would have a couple of unapologetic pro-choice candidates and primarily luke-warm pro-life candidates (say McCain level of interest). This year we had no unapologetic pro-choisers, as Rudy is an apologetic pro-choice candidate who "hates abortion" and would probably do a good job on judges. Everybody else wants to see Roe reversed, and is on the record for saying so. Many, Hunter, Huckabee, and Thompson are longstanding anti-Roe voices. Romney is recent. Rudy wouldn't fight to preserve it.
My frustration is that things have never been better for So-Cons in my view (I am a SoCon myself), that the Huckabee candidacy seems to be grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.
I am a FredHead who has been trying to engage with Huckabee supporters--and am having little if any success.
feature to send me an e-mail. I know you are arguing in good faith, but I also sense you are truly troubled by what is going on.
I would be interested in communicating off-line (albeit not tonight) if you are.
acknowledged that their guy needed to make peace with the other groups in the coalition.
Huckabee supporters don't care about getting along at all, and then you complain the loudest about being bitter and alienated.
Did you care what anyone else in the Reagan coalition thought? No you didn't.
You didn't even care about NRL's endorsement of Fred. To you, it was all money, corruption, greed.
Huckabee supporters are going to bring an effective end to social conservatives for the foreseeable future. You don't care about maintaining any allies. You are in fact alienating many pro-lifers like me who support everything that you support.
how are they our allies?
What great things have they done for us?
They want our votes and that is it, other than this they want nothing to do with us.
They gave us Ginsburg. Clinton could not have given us Ginsburg if it wasn't for them, they could have said no. Insted they all said yes.
There goes your prolife vote right there. Didn't we vote for these guys?
We social conservatives are starting to tell it like it is and we are not going away. The "tent" needs some serious renovating.
How can the "tent" get renovated if you want to take your ball and go home because no one wants to play your game?
New Orleans......Proud to Swim Home!
he just wants to punish the party for a past grievance, even if nursing that grievance results in more abortions.
Sink the coalition
Make sure that democrats hold both houses and the Presidency
That way we can make sure that Roe is not overturned, and maybe, if we are "lucky"---tax payer money will be used to subsidize abortions.
Great. Sounds like a plan. (Sarcasm off).
You have such a victim complex. Its not productive. FOr your own sake, I hope you can overcome it.
Making a McCain/Romney Republican morally equivalent to a Hillary/Edwards democrat shows that your moral judgment is out of whack.
I tried, and am now giving up.
Look, I know your not liking me right now but I need to tell it like it is.
And again you are blaming us for whatever the democrats do. Like we had better settle for less and less or get nothing which is what we would have ended up getting anways.
some way. If we don't stick together, everybody loses.
Deny your responsbility for walking away, but that you know what will happen if the Reagan coalition is broken.
I don't dislike you. I am frustrated by you. We need to be on the same team.
Like you got with Reagan ?
Like you got with Bush 41 ?
BTW Janice Rogers Brown is on the federal bench, Samuel Alito and Roberts are on the supreme court.
just what counts as 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
It seems like he is gone too much. What about home? What about America? We got some big domestic issues here.
2 conservative judges and yes I'm thankful, but my point is that they had the house, the senate, and the Presidency. And the best they could do was below the bare minimum?
They have given us much more than just 2 liberal judges. They gave us Ginsburg and all the rest by voting FOR, not against but FOR them.
1. I am a social conservative.
2. I really believe abortion has ended over 40 million lives.
3. I don't consider money an equal issue to this.
4. I also believe that marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman.
I just wanted to clear that up for you, since you apparently didn't know this about me.
You obviously do not know the money that goes into the research and development of drugs. If you think the drug companies are making huge profits off the sick imagine if there were no drugs to help them out to begin with. The next time you go to your doctors office, dont dare to ask for your free samples. They are for the people who need them the most, the poor and grateful.
New Orleans......Proud to Swim Home!
Anyone but McCain and the Huckster in the Republican Primary.
Guiliani Blew it sad to say. Mitt is my second choice and here is a chance to drive a stake in the heart of his (McCain's) campaign.....
Here is chance to throw stake in that Mitt's 500 hair do!
Mitt is so fake and he comes off so pompous
Vote McCain!
In my view so called strategic voting is something the dems do well and I don't care to emulate. IF they don't think their guy can win then they should vote for whoever they can stomach between Mitt and John.
But thats just my opinion.