The Candidates
Featured Archives
One of the most oft repeated lines with regards to Rudy Giuliani’s strategy to secure the nomination has been that social conservative voters will split their vote between Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and the bottom-tier guys – allowing him to gain plurality of votes and win the contest.
Faced with the proposition of a Rudy presidency, right-wing social groups threatened to vote third party if he is the nominee (which turned out to be somewhat of an empty threat when they were called on their gamble of losing power). In e-mail correspondence with other R4′08 contributors, I expressed how I thought these threats were ridiculous – and if these groups of social conservatives really wanted to make a difference they’d throw their support behind Romney or Huckabee or Thompson to avoid the splitting of the socon vote and enable somebody to actually beat Giuliani.
Now, it looks like they’ve caught that vision finally as they are realizing their options in this election. Just look at a sampling of the headlines from today’s news:
Why Evangelicals May Turn to Romney – Time
US Conservatives, Evangelicals urged to galvanize support around Romney – Christian Today
Will Evangelicals Rally Behind Romney? – David Brody, CBN News
Evangelicals’ Choice: Bolt or Back Romney – courant.com
Evangelical Supporter Seeks to Rally Brethren For Romney – The Caucus Blog, New York Times
Evangelicals warming to Romney – Washington Times
These articles contain the following snippets:
Some 150 top-level conservative Christian leaders are expected to receive in the mail this week a letter urging them to “galvanize support” around presidential hopeful Mitt Romney so former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani “isn’t the unintended beneficiary of our divided support among several candidates.”
…
The continuing search by evangelical leaders for a Republican presidential candidate they can believe in took an intriguing turn this week when a handful of evangelical notables started to lean more publicly – and more urgently – in the direction of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
…
Demoss’s memo was just the latest effort in the system-wide Stop Rudy At All Costs campaign among social conservatives, who will host all the major candidates at the Values Voter Summit in Washington the weekend of October 19. On the same day that DeMoss made his views widely known about Romney, two other social conservatives, Gary Bauer, president of American Values, and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, met with reporters in Washington and made some positive comments about the Massachusetts governor – and less positive ones about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, the social conservative some had believed could attract grassroots support.
…
With that in mind, they cite not only Romney’s strong family values and faithful recitation of the conservative gospel – no new taxes, no gay marriage, no abortion. But also, in an appeal to the business and technocrat wings of the party, they point to his record as founder and CEO of Bain Capital, his management of the Salt Lake City Olympics and track record as a turnaround artist. “That kind of experience,” DeMoss wrote, “convinces me Mitt Romney could lead, manage and govern America during a critical time in world history.”
…
Two social conservatives leaders – in surprise moves yesterday – criticized fellow evangelical and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, while praising another party hopeful, Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer hope the former Massachusetts governor will passionately express his pro-life views at the Values Voter Summit Oct. 19 and 20 at the Washington Hilton.
…
The leaders defended Mr. Romney’s evolution from pro-choice advocacy to the view that life begins at conception.
“I don’t think he’s flip-flopping,” Mr. Perkins said.
The articles basically cite support coming in from Demoss, Perkins, and Bauer, and work done by them and on their behalf to urge evangelicals to support Romney, as a basis to set up a coming shift in this primary election. It is apparent already, to the extent that news reports have shifted their headlines from things like “Evangelicals Unlikely To Support Romney” and “Romney’s Evangelical Problem” to the headlines you see above. How far that shift goes, with some evangelicals and values voters fearing a Giuliani nomination, remains to be seen – but the groundwork is being laid.
October 12th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
[...] post by Matt C and software by Elliott [...]
October 12th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I’m not an evangelical but on Feb 5th if McCain or Huckabee haven’t won a primary than I’ll vote for Romney.
October 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I’ve been writing that I think one of the reasons the “Christian” conservatives are behaving so badly and acting like a bunch of spoiled brats this election cycle is due to the fact that they are in the middle of one huge power grab. Their worst nightmare would be to see a Rudy Giuliani victory. It is much better for them to back the loser that Mitt Romney is sure to be, thus cementing their leadership over the “conservative” end of the GOP.
SJ Reidhead
The Pink Flamingo
October 12th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
This is great news!! I’m glad to hear that the evangelical leaders are finally beginning to realize that Mormons are their allies in the culture war, just as Protestants and Catholics have banned together to fight for the right to life of unborn children.
When I was growing up in the late 1950s and 60s, Protestants working with Catholics on ANYTHING was unheard of.
Mitt Romney 2008!
October 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Evangelicals love God so much that they hate their neighbors. At least, if he is a Mormon. The group that is supposedly benefiting the Republican Party, is exercising a veto over the best candidates we have.
- Romney, an outstanding executive had to grovel and change his position on numerous issues. They still don’t like him because he’s a Mormon, and because of his flip-flopping.
- Giuliani, the mayor of New York City who achieved the impossible and led the city fearlessly through the worst attack on American civilians in history. He switched on several issues, but they still don’t like him because he’s nominally pro-choice.
- McCain, a war hero who is a conviction politician and a crusader for reform and change in Washington. They don’t like him because he favors stem cell research and blasted Robertson and Falwell in 2000 (scumbags of the highest order, both of them) EVEN AS HE PRAISED James Dobson.
- Thompson, another conviction politician is done in by his convictions. They don’t like him because he recognizes the proper role of the federal government: and that is not to outlaw abortion r gay marriage.
My question is, who do these people like, since they seem to hate everybody… Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Hey, maybe he can do for America what he did for Iran, no abortion, no gays, no evolution (no wonder he still looks like a monkey), modesty in clothing. James Dobson would love him if he converted to Christianity but retained his lovely positions on the issues.
Ahmadinejad/Bin Laden 2008 – Ban Abortion And We’ll Forgive you for 9/11
October 12th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Go Romney!
October 12th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Awakened:
“no evolution (no wonder he still looks like a monkey)”
That was TOO funny. LOL
October 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
What’s wrong with evolution?
October 12th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
The assumption you repeat in the first sentence is WRONG. Rudy does not need a multi-way field to win.
When Republicans are polled regarding a one-on-one race between Rudy and Fred, Rudy and Mitt, and Rudy and McCain, Rudy always wins by 15-25% margins.
I’ve posted this half a dozen times.
How can you let your brain get away with repeating that mantra that the FACTS have DISPROVED, and you KNOW IT?
October 12th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I’d like to hear an actual answer from a SoCon about the fact that Ahmadinejad and the Taliban are largely lined up with their cultural views.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I’m not a big fan of stoning people or of polygamy or of dhimmitude or any of the other “cultural views” of the Taliban.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Polls aren’t facts. Polls are estimates of what people a large group of people will do based on what a small group plan on doing now.
You can get all steamy Metro but the polls are just measuring a few thousand voter’s uninformed opinions. They’ll actually mean something in December.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
So, you’re on the same team, just a lot more extreme. Lethal injections instead of stoning, more humane. And you guys gave up the Western version of dhimmitude a few decades ago (because we cultural liberals forced you to).
October 12th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Two groups can agree on a platform or belief system but completely disagree in how to attain their goals. The Taliban and SoCons may agree on abortion, gays, etc but completely disagree on how to champion and promote their cause.
Even Conservatives and Liberals agree on some issues but it how those issues are supposed to be handled that differentiates the two sides.
Hell – if the Taliban and Achmed-whack-a-job already believe the same platform as socons then all is left is to convert them to Westernized ways and then the socon group can grow even more
October 12th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
You’re against the death penalty, Metro?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
econ grad stud: ‘I’m not a big fan of (1) stoning people or of (2) polygamy or of (3) dhimmitude or any of the (4) other “cultural views†of the Taliban.’
1. Stoning people is mandated by the Bible, that’s why I’m very much for it.
2. Many of the great Godly men in the Bible have more than one wife. Why shouldn’t I be able to do that?
3. What is dhimmitude? It is the subjugation of those who do not hold the same faith as the Muslims. I believe this is the exact same goal Dobson and his ilk are striving for, they want to force me to abide by their religious beliefs. With one important different, they do not seek to impose the infidel-tax the Muslims like.
4. What other cultural views does the Taliban have? But it’s irrelevant, really. I wasn’t talking about the Taliban. I was talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Men in Iran aren’t forced to wear beards. I think that most religious fundamentalists would like a Christian state with the laws that Iran has (obviously, there will be some differences, but they’re small).
October 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
RayinNH: ‘Two groups can agree on a platform or belief system but completely disagree in how to attain their goals. The Taliban and SoCons may agree on abortion, gays, etc but completely disagree on how to champion and promote their cause.
Even Conservatives and Liberals agree on some issues but it how those issues are supposed to be handled that differentiates the two sides.
Hell – if the Taliban and Achmed-whack-a-job already believe the same platform as socons then all is left is to convert them to Westernized ways and then the socon group can grow even more’
You’re absolutely right. And welcome to race42008, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you post here before.
P.S. LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!!!
October 12th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
#5 — Great post!
October 12th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
econ grad stud: ‘You’re against the death penalty, Metro?’
I just don’t understand. There are many people on this board who are against the death penalty. I’ve been able to count several:
- Matt (pro-life)
- TLG
- Metro
- Thomas Alan (pro-life)
- Clarence Clause (pro-life)
Supporters of the death penalty:
- Me
- Mcon
- cwpete
- econ grad stud
5-4. The Supreme Court hath spoken. The death penalty is unconstitutional.
I added the pro-life tags to show you that it isn’t limited to ‘liberals’ like myself. I sure don’t hope that this isn’t the future of America, because if so many young people on the conservative side oppose the death penalty, imagine how it must be on the liberal Democratic side.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Awakened what have Dobson and his “ilk” tried to force you to do?
I’m not aware of any proposed laws that would force you to do any religious activity.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
It’s not so much that I’m against the death penalty, but that I don’t think that juries should be deciding it. I think it should be left in the hands of the victim’s family if there is absolutely solid DNA evidence.
I personally am against it because I think a life in prison would be absolutely horrific. Have any of you people actually visited a prison? THAT is a life of misery. People only are for the death penalty because they think it sends murderers to Hell.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
egs — Faith-based initiatives..?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
The lunatic fringe is planting all these stories.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
[...] with a post up this evening and I think the issue bears consideration. The chilling title is The Dawning Realization of the Social Right. If the assertions are true, if the conclusions being made are accurate, it will not be a new [...]
October 12th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
You only have to watch a show like Forensic Files for about a week to see that people who commit murder are not worried about the consequences of getting caught at all. They simply do not ever think about it, never pause to reflect on what might happen if they are convicted.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
The national polls won’t help Giuliani in the early states. They become far more relevant after the first primaries. 15% lead in the national polls at this time translates into very little if you’re trailing in Iowa or New Hampshire, etc. It’s not how the contest is won.
Giuliani will fragment the Republican Party.
Awakened, please hear me out on this one. I put a fair amount of time into research and I respect your opinion. Just give what I’m about to write a fair shake.
First of all, I was curious just what specifically made the line-item veto “unconstituitional”. What was the reason it was found “unconstitutional”? That’s when I went through the court briefs on the proceedings and outcome.
What I learned about the “unconstitutional” line-item veto solidified my position that Giuliani is not a hero, and it was not a favor to America and Giuliani didn’t rescue us from some great injustice.
43 governors in the U.S. have line-item veto within their states and it is not unconstitutional. The line-item veto in and of itself does not violate any inherent principles in the constitution, like civil rights, etc. It doesn’t undo anything that the constitution stands for.
It was NOT struck down for injustice or violation of the Constitution. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND just what makes it “unconstitutional”.
When folks holler unconstitutional, it makes the line-item veto sound on par with a civil rights violoation. Not at all.
It was struck down because the Federal Constitution doesn’t specifically provide for it, like the state ones do. It was a lawyer’s loophole. Giuliani got it thrown out on a technicality and it was struck down because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
NOT because it violated anything already in the Constitution. (Otherwise 43 governors would be in violation as they exercise it now).
The other big misconception: The $200 million wasn’t property NYC already had in place, nor was it money the federal government was going to hand NYC. It was taxes that Giuliani wanted to raise for certain pet PORK BARREL entitlement programs and was not given permission to do so.
So this man, did what he did and struck down an essential federal fiscal tool to deal with Pork Barrel politics and special interst, so he could raise taxes for certain social programs in NYC. Tell me he fits the profile of a Republican leader??!!
He fought and eliminated one of the most effective fiscal tools ever to raise taxes for entitlement programs in NYC. He is not a hero, it wasn’t an altruistic move, he didn’t uncover any great misjustice, he won on a technicality only folks.
It was short-sighted and myopic. He failed to see the greater picture. He didn’t stick it to Clinton as much as he stuck it to the Republicans who made the line-item veto happen.
This seems to be a repeating pattern for Giuliani.
My question is, what other greater long-term good will he trade for his more immediate gratification? His personal life attests to this same pattern. I am not impressed at all.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
econ grad stud: ‘Awakened what have Dobson and his “ilk†tried to force you to do?’
It’s not as much that they have forced me to do something, it’s that they are trying to ban me from doing things that I do want to do. For example, gambling through the Internet has been banned by Congress, thanks to the Christian Coalition. I don’t care much for their belief that it is ‘immoral’, they should be free to not gamble, but they can’t force other people to follow their religious edicts. But I’m thankful that they haven’t been successful in pushing their agenda that much, otherwise, we would have lost our freedom to a bunch of reigious fanatics.
‘I’m not aware of any proposed laws that would force you to do any religious activity.’
Certainly not. However, forcing me to abide by religious tenets I don’t agree with is tyrannical.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
TLG: ‘It’s not so much that I’m against the death penalty, but that I don’t think that juries should be deciding it. I think it should be left in the hands of the victim’s family if there is absolutely solid DNA evidence.’
I agree with the solid DNA-part. And I’ve thought about letting families decide the matter, but consider the following: any family is bound to be harassed by groups opposed to the death penalty, until they do the bidding of these groups. You really don’t want to put families in such a vulnerable spot.
‘I personally am against it because I think a life in prison would be absolutely horrific. Have any of you people actually visited a prison? THAT is a life of misery. People only are for the death penalty because they think it sends murderers to Hell.’
Well, I don’t believe in Hell. But the important thing is that would-be murderers are more likely to believe in a Hell than I am. That’s why research by an opponent of the death penalty shows that every execution deters about 6 murders.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
TLG – I don’t think the death penalty sends convicts to hell but I still support it. Where the convict goes has nothing to do with it. I don’t care if the convict converts to Christianity and is “saved” s/he still has to face the punishment for what s/he did and if the state says that death is the penalty then so be it.
Awakened – thanks for the welcome. I used to visit and post quite a bit in the past but got tired of the extreme negative nature of many of the commenters on here. I decided to come back and give it another shot.
I wish our state motto was still applicable. Ever since the Dem’s took over in 2006 the state has quickly gone down the shitter. Can’t wait to correct things in 2008.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
TLG, I have two brothers that have spent long periods of time in jail. They were as happy as larks in there.
I’m not in favor of the death penalty for retribution as you seem to suggest. I’m in favor of the death penalty because it’s the government’s job to enforce justice.
If you’ve taken a life you owe your own life as payment for the crime.
BTW the evangelical community is largely opposed to faith-based initiatives by the government.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Cliff: ‘You only have to watch a show like Forensic Files for about a week to see that people who commit murder are not worried about the consequences of getting caught at all. They simply do not ever think about it, never pause to reflect on what might happen if they are convicted.’
Most of the might not think about it. But I’m trying to deter the minority that does think about it. And research has shown that the death penalty is effective in deterring at least some murderes. I believe it’s worth it. Get rid of one lowlife and save six innocent people, it sounds like a no-brainer to me.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
“Well, I don’t believe in Hell. But the important thing is that would-be murderers are more likely to believe in a Hell than I am. That’s why research by an opponent of the death penalty shows that every execution deters about 6 murders.”
I’m a personal opponent of it. I don’t believe it should be abolished.
“You really don’t want to put families in such a vulnerable spot.”
This is really stretching it. I refuse to believe the scenario. But either way, the family can indeed choose not to opt for the death penalty..!
October 12th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
BTW – not only do I support the death penalty I also believe in airing executions live on TV. If proponents say they want the death penalty to be a deterrent then let’s make it a real deterrent. Broadcast executions; publicize them more and more. Put them out there so people really have something to think about when they start walking down a life of crime.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
That sounds positively Coulterian!
October 12th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
If it is, then so be it.
I consider myself a Libertarian leaning Conservative but think our justice system needs some major revamping. We need to start making punishments really fit the crime. This country needs to start deterring crime instead of just punishing it. In my mind, there are 100’s of thousands of candidates for cheap labor all over this country. Why does my state pay state employees $20/hr to clean up trash on the side of the highway when we have thousands of men and women sitting in jails all over the state with nothing else to do? Put them to work and lower my taxes as a result (oh wait – that won’t happen; we have a Dem governor and Dem legislature for the first time ever).
October 12th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Shawnie: ‘Awakened, please hear me out on this one.’
No need to ask. I respected the way you destroyed me when I criticized you for making positive comments about James Dobson. You’re one tough woman, lady.
‘First of all, I was curious just what specifically made the line-item veto “unconstituitionalâ€. ‘
What made the line-item veto unconsitutional, was that it was a violation of the separation of powers. The President has the Constitutional authority to veto legislation, no more, no less, and no Act of Congress can either affect the President’s inherent powers, nor expand them. At least, not when it’s giving up its own powers to empower the executive.
‘43 governors in the U.S. have line-item veto within their states and it is not unconstitutional. The line-item veto in and of itself does not violate any inherent principles in the constitution’
I believe you’re mistaken. The 43 states that do have line-item vetoes either have constitutions that allow the line-item veto, or are more silent on the separation of powers than the federal Constitution is. Certainly, the Constitution’s division of powers to the federal branches of government doesn’t apply to the states, thus, states are not barred from enacting constitutional amendments or laws (if the constitution is ambiguous or silent) that allow the governor to have a line-item veto.
‘When folks holler unconstitutional, it makes the line-item veto sound on par with a civil rights violoation. Not at all.’
It is on par with civil rights violations in at least one respect: both violate the Constitution.
‘It was struck down because the Federal Constitution doesn’t specifically provide for it, like the state ones do. It was a lawyer’s loophole. Giuliani got it thrown out on a technicality and it was struck down because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.’
Absolutely not. The Constitution’s division of powers (which applies only to the federal branches) is not a technicality, it’s what the country’s government has been based on for 200+ years. If simple Acts of Congress could abrogate it, the entire document would be worthless and we would be having a system like Britain’s, the country that has no written Constitution.
‘My question is, what other greater long-term good will he trade for his more immediate gratification?’
It’s hardly the case that in a parallel universe without Giuliani, the line-item veto is still intact. You can rest assured that the next guy whose funding was cut would sue Clinton and beat him. People aren’t crazy, especially when money is involved. It’s not a very good idea to rely on unconstitutional legislation to do important things – especially since the line-item veto, if I’m not mistaken, was passed by near-supermajorities. If they were truly serious about having the line-item veto (which legislators like Trent Lott obviously weren’t), they should have travelled the constitutional route which is a Constitutional amendment. They didn’t, and that’s why their pork is intact unto this day.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
TLG: ‘I’m a personal opponent of it. I don’t believe it should be abolished.’
STACK OVERLOAD.
‘This is really stretching it. I refuse to believe the scenario.’
You don’t? I actually thought it was a pretty good idea, until I arrived on this objection. Advocates for prisoners are especially loony, they send convicted murderers and rapists ‘letters’ to console them. They bomb the governor’s mansion with letters when another vicious murderer is about to be executed, begging for his life. What makes you think that they wouldn’t do the latter to the family of the victim, if they get to make the decision. Bear in mind that the last thing that the family needs is pressure by nutcases, begging for the life of the man who took away their son/brother/father.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
RayinNH: ‘BTW – not only do I support the death penalty I also believe in airing executions live on TV. If proponents say they want the death penalty to be a deterrent then let’s make it a real deterrent. Broadcast executions; publicize them more and more. Put them out there so people really have something to think about when they start walking down a life of crime.’
All right!
October 12th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Awakened:
Maybe I need a lesson in Legal-eese, but here it goes:
“What made the line-item veto unconstitutional, was that it was a violation of the separation of powers. The President has the Constitutional authority to veto legislation, no more, no less, and no Act of Congress can either affect the President’s inherent powers, nor expand them. At least, not when it’s giving up its own powers to empower the executive.”
How is vetoing part of a legislation/bill with 20 (sometimes hundreds) of completely different issues less of a separation of powers than vetoing the exact same item if it were a piece of legislation/bill by itself?
How is vetoing and striking down a whole piece of legislation any more of a separation of powers than compromising and letting some of the mutually agreeable parts of the legislation come to pass?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Romney is the man the evangelicals can turn to. Thompson’s numbers are waning. Romney is the candidate that supports values most similar to theirs. Evangelicals need to get over this “Mormon” and realize they are just shooting themselves in the foot by picking a second-tier candidate to support.
http://FamiliesForRomney.blogspot.com
October 12th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Shawnie: ‘How is vetoing part of a legislation/bill with 20 (sometimes hundreds) of completely different issues less of a separation of powers than vetoing the exact same item if it were a piece of legislation/bill by itself?’
In exactly the way you describe it. Under the Constitution, the President has no authority to amend bills, that is strictly the job of the legislative branches. And that’s really what the line-item veto amounts to, amending the bill by striking parts the President doesn’t like. The Constitution says the following: Congress passes a law. President receives it and then either signs it, vetoes it, or allows it to pass into law without his signature. There isn’t a ‘presidential amendment’-process authorized, and Congress can’t give up its own powers to the President.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Romney blogger: ‘Romney is the man the evangelicals can turn to. Thompson’s numbers are waning. Romney is the candidate that supports values most similar to theirs. ‘
What are those values, foot-tapping?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Then the technicality seems to be in the word “amend”.
As the bills have (unfortunately) evolved, without check and balance, into these “everyone jump on board” vehicles. The efficiencies of the legislation process is greatly compromised. I can see the unconstitutionality of the President amending a bill IF the bill/legislation is about one issue or completely related issues.
When there are hundreds of unrelated, special interest, lobbied issues all clumped together with worthy legislation and it is a do or die situation, the legislative branch has effectively tied the hands of the President to do his best job of sorting through good and bad legislation.
There is an inherent injustice to the American people in this process. And yet line-item veto is unconstitutional while it’s opposite – out-of-balance grouping of unrelated topics is constitutional. Something is severely whacked out here. And the line-item veto did put some balance back. It is really too bad.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
The Christian Right migration to the Romney campaign was so inevitable it might as well been written in the stars. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the fulfillment of multiple ancient prophecies. Ten candidates mathematically have to eventuate at some point into no more than 2 viable campaigns. William F. Buckley Jr., when asked one time how he decided on who to vote for in primaries replied that he always voted for the Right-ward most viable candidate. This principle, when applied to the nomination this time translates how to SoCons supporting the most SoCon viable candidate; to wit, Mitt. This migration will become more like a stampede in January.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Shawnie: ‘When there are hundreds of unrelated, special interest, lobbied issues all clumped together with worthy legislation and it is a do or die situation, the legislative branch has effectively tied the hands of the President to do his best job of sorting through good and bad legislation.’
Well, I believe this is how it has always been. Attach bills you like to must-pass legislation and get a presidential signature. But the president can veto the entire bill, and dare Congress to pass the same legislation again. Indeed, Reagan vetoed several spending bills. Only President Bush has been very timid in making vetoes, but that may be connected with the fact that his party controlled Congress.
‘There is an inherent injustice to the American people in this process.’
That may very well be, but that doesn’t make the line-item veto Constitutional. The misdeeds of Congress you describe are all constitutional and consistent with the rules (of the House and the Senate), while the line-item veto is not. I agree with you that Congress abuses its power, but that doesn’t magically mean that the line-item veto is constitutional.
‘And the line-item veto did put some balance back. It is really too bad.’
We may need a constitutional amendment. But as Giuliani said, you can bang your head to a wall all you like, that doesn’t really make a difference. At the very least, there are five opponents of the constitutionality of the line-item veto on the Supreme Court (Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg), and that’s assuming that both Roberts and Alito agree with you. It’s gone and it’s not coming back.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Dave: ‘The Christian Right migration to the Romney campaign was so inevitable it might as well been written in the stars. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the fulfillment of multiple ancient prophecies.’
Are you crazy? Or is this a joke?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
One more thing:
“You can rest assured that the next guy whose funding was cut would sue Clinton and beat him.”
That hardly makes Giuliani the good guy.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Oh, and it was not funding Giuliani was fighting for, it was the green light to raise new taxes above and beyond previously set benchmarks for social programs….
October 12th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
And that hardly makes Giuliani the good guy.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Awakened,
Would you care to cite the study showing that the death penalty deters 6 murders per execution? Solid evidence on that front might alter how I consider the issue. I’m currently opposed for a few main reasons. 1. The death penalty is horrendously expesnive. It’s stunningly cheaper to simply stick criminals in prison for the rest of their lives. This is true for a few obvious reasons. First, we have an extremely generous appeals process, that ultimately draws out the average capital case for something like 20 years. This process is paid largely by the taxpayers. Some have suggested fixing this by shortening the process, but I certainly wouldn’t want to execute someone without giving them ample opportunity to prove their innocence. Which leads to number 2. I’m not at all convinced that trial by jury produces accurate verdicts often enough to justify executing someone. I’d need to feel that something like a 99%+ accuracy was established. I don’t currently. 3. I haven’t seen any evidence that the death penalty deters any murders. 4. I have moral qualms about ending someone’s life, if I feel they aren’t a present or future danger to society. I think considerably more prisoners should get life without parole for this reason. As long as I feel reasonably assured that they no longer pose a threat, I’m not in favor of ending their lives, given the above difficulties I have with the death penalty.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
And I don’t buy the main story. I think “evangelicals” won’t back Romney gives “the Mromon speech”. Even beyond their immediate backing though, Romney NEEDS the humanizing a properly constructed Mormon speech will give him. It’s a golden opportunity to turn himself into a more sympathetic, less calculating, character. And I can’t, for the life of me, understand why it seems that his camp is undecided on the issue.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Don’t all the candidates support the death penalty (despite its cruelty, futility, and inhumanity)?
As for evangelicals gravitating to Romney, whether that is true or not does not alone guarantee Romney the nomination. To do serious harm to Giuliani’s candidacy, someone needs to attack him where he is strongest, on security. Romney actually isn’t the best person to do this, McCain or Hunter is. And they could hit him where it hurts the most, on terrorism in NYC. The WTC was hit twice of course and it is fair to ask what measures he took after the first attack. It is unseemly, but probably effective.
If someone can destroy his 9/11 image, he would be nothing more than an angry, socially liberal former mayor of NYC, i.e., Ed Cock.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Romney is a fraud and he’ll get smacked around by Clinton if he gets the nomination. The man has funneled millions of dollars of his personal wealth into his presidential campaign and changed his positions to accommodate the base. He’s nothing but a republican version of John Kerry and he’ll get called out for being a flip flopper. I’d rather have a liberal Giuliani as the nominee because at least he’s being honest.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Shawnie,
When the Confederate Constitution was written, the President’s line item veto was included in the document, precisely because the Southern States had recognized this lack as a defect in the U.S. Constitution. Does that change the issue? Who knows? It just shows that legislators have recognized for at least that long in our country that the line item veto is not secured to the President unless by Constitutional Amendment. I for one wouldn’t favor letting someone like Hillary slash all the good out of a bill and keep the socialist parts she agreed with. It is a danger as well as a tool for good.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
[...] This Is A Must Read Jump to Comments http://race42008.com/2007/10/12/the-dawning-realization-of-the-social-right/ [...]
October 12th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
The issue with the death penalty is best weighed in economic terms. If someone is so dangerous to society that they should at least be locked away for life, then they should be killed so that the society should not bear the costly burden of their maintenance. Public executions would be preferable, and soon after sentencing please. If we’re gonna kill them, why pay for them till they’re old and they do the deed? It makes no sense.
And Awakened, if you read this, sorry about the Liberal Dem thing. It seems you do have some common sense
October 12th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Awakened,
What’s the matter? You can’t sense subtle sarcasm when you see it? The point that it was going to happen though was serious. And it’s monumentally significant. Next time I’ll put “this was hyperbole” in parentheses, if you need me to.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:19 am
I know I’m a little late to this discussion but thanks AWA for including me with those who support the death penalty.
I care little about the “cruelty” or “inhumanity” of the death penalty. All of those emotions are reserved for the victims of the crime.
I also believe that the process should be sped up while still ensuring beyond doubt that only the guilty are quickly sent ahead. My tax dollars should not be used to watch a man so dangerous he must be kept in solitary his whole life.
And finally I believe that criminals fear death far more than life in prison and because of that I believe death row can be a nice deterrent for people.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Moon said it best for me.
I support the death penalty. The way we coddle criminals and turn them back out into society to make more victims is completely out of balance.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I think if this were to happen, the evangelicals coalisced around Romney, he would win the nomination.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I heard today that there are third party groups collecting funds to run negative ads against Rudy, and apparently nothing is off limits. Kerik, abortion, Rudy in drag are all within limits, but his wives were also mentioned. So it might get real nasty soon.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
26 Shawnie
“Giuliani will fragment the Republican Party.”
No. Giuliani may start to make the Republican party the mainstream majority party for a generation.
A coalition of Republicans and unappeasable SoCons- who latched on to Republicanism because on their own they could not elect a National dogcatcher- may break apart.
In its place, Independents and disillusioned Democrats, understanding that the Democrat Party is now a Far Left, Moveon.org, tax raising, socialist, surrender party, will vote for the rational alternative.
Giuliani is the savor of the Republican Party. Maybe not a Republican Party as you would like it to be, but a Party that a majority of Americans will agree with and support.
And that is what the SoCons fear most. They prefer to be heard even as they lose. They fear becoming irrelevant. It’s not policy, or they would rather win a half full glass rather then die of thirst, it’s their ego.
The irony is that they don’t appreciate that negotiating with Giuliani, being resonable, may get them so much of what they claim to want.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
John Galt Says:
“I think if this were to happen, the evangelicals coalesced around Romney, he would win the nomination.”
The goal is the Presidency. Nomination only and you’re a Dukakis.
How does Romney win a single State Bush didn’t? Does he win MA?
How many States does Romney lose that voted for Bush? Oh? FL?
October 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
#62 Opinionated.
It seems you underestimate the proportion of “SoCons” and fiscally conservative Republicans to the proportion of Independents and disillusioned Dems.
Time will tell who has the right slant.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:08 am
I am EXTREMELY disappointed in men I have admired for so long who are abandoning principles for, well, perhaps a perceived strategy to win or wield some kind of political power or they have just gone off the deep end.
Christians should be involved in the political process, they should have influence but my friends we do not abandon our principles to win politically. When we do, we lose, because we become what we are opposed to.
Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, and Richard Land are seriously compromising Christian principles and values for a political win.
I will not compromise.
Will you?
I think these guys need to get the message: We want Uncompromising Leadership.
Maybe they just forgot.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Awakened,
You wrote: “5-4. The Supreme Court hath spoken. The death penalty is unconstitutional.”
To which case are you referring? There have been several, including a couple variations on the theme in the last couple of years.
BTW, the supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter of the Constitution in America. The Amendment process overrules any and all court decisions.
Finally, the wording of the 5th Amendment itself presupposes a death penalty. The Constitution cannot be ruled unconstitutional.
October 14th, 2007 at 1:50 am
[...] wants to portray himself as the emerging choice of the so-called “social right”; see: The Dawning Realization of the Social Right, a breathless and intemperate race42008.com Romney-fantasia authored by someone named Matt [...]
October 14th, 2007 at 1:53 am
THis thread has really gotten off topic. ….To comment about the original post. I am glad to see that the Christian right are looking at Mitt Romney. They share the same moral values and in my opinion will see that Mitt Romney is committed to strengthening America. I believe Mitt Romney is an incredible candidate with the skills a that are needed to lead this nation. I am happy to see that they realize he is not running for Pastor in Chief. Go Mitt Romney!
October 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
[...] race42008.com » Blog Archive » The Dawning Realization of the Social Right [...]
October 15th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
[...] Then, they reckon, social conservatives will have to go with them. Mitt Romney is trying, and to some extent succeeding, in rallying some social conservatives to his side. Fred Thompson also is. Today a Fred Thompson [...]
October 15th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
[...] Then, they reckon, social conservatives will have to go with them. Mitt Romney is trying, and to some extent succeeding, in rallying some social conservatives to his side. Fred Thompson also is. Today a Fred Thompson [...]