GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I have been impressed with Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s debate performances. I have been heartened to hear a major GOP presidential candidate speak so eloquently about the life and marriage issues and with such empathy for the working class and lower income families. Finally, I have been thrilled to hear a man unafraid of the PC police as he unashamedly refers to Jesus and God in public discourse.
I have been disappointed at some of his seemingly anti-Mormon comments but I have been more disappointed in the MSM leftist over reactions to same.
But my biggest disappointments concern Huckabee’s recent policy statements that more resemble a leftist democratic party candidate and the stereotypical views of commentators with respect to Huckabee’s evangelical support in the polls.
Huck abee will not be the GOP nominee. He is more liberal on more core issues than the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani. And given Rudy’s promises on judges and his judiciary team, I trust Rudy over Huckabee to pick the right judges. And it is in picking judges where a President makes the most difference.
Huckabee’s recent description of President Bush’s “arrogant” and “bunker mentality” foreign policy were the last straw for this Rooster. He seems not to understand that we went to the United Nations for 17 months before invading Iraq; that France and Germany have elected conservatives; and that The Surge of General David Petraeus has us winning in Iraq.
Even more dangerous is his view that we should negotiate with Iran.
This all follows his denigration of the Club for Growth as being for “greed”; his paeans to the Man-Made Church of Global Warming and other nanny state tendencies for nationwide bans on smoking and diet control; his granting of pardons and clemencies to more than ten convicted murderers that he did not claim evidence showed innocence; and his record of tax increases and spending.
Huck is history.
What has been enraging has been the assumptions made in the media about evangelicals based on Huck’s rise in the polls. They get accused of only caring about abortion and/or being anti-Mormon bigots.
The fact is that most poll responders don’t know much about Huck, except for his good debate performances.
And while it is true that Iowa republicans, including their evangelicals are less conservative that most, I doubt Huck will even win Iowa given how quickly Huck’s policy statements will now get out. Moreover, most evangelicals, especially the seminal GOP winner pickers in the Palmetto State, are war hawks first, and generally orthodox conservatives on taxes, etc.
South Carolina will make Huck history if Iowa doesn’t. Of this, I have no doubt. Dems vote emotion. Repubs vote issues.
I do hope we learn from Huck that we need not be ashamed of showing by our rhetoric that we care for the lower class. Let’s just point out that it’s conservative economic policies that produce the caring results.
Nothing has amused me more over the past year than the frequent apocalyptic leaps of logic in the poll-driven blogs. Rudy and Hillary were already nominated and Hillary was already into her second term.
Nothing enrages me more than the ignorant of history, bigoted, and/or stereotypical descriptions of Evangelicals, Christians, social-conservatives and Southerners. The latest examples are the Iowa Huck-leading poll-driven conclusions of some that recent Iowa poll responders are anti-Mormon bigots that support Huckabee solely due to the fact that he is a Christian.
Many here also regularly assert that evangelicals only care about abortion and gay marriage; are generally big government liberals and that they want to “impose” their beliefs on the non-Christians.
Peggy Noonan looks at Iowa polls, Huck’s ads, and the MSM questioning of Mitt’s Mormonism, and wonders if Reagan could “survive” this GOP “environment.”
This former South Carolina Democrat Party official and activist from puberty thru 2000, now post-2001-conservative epiphany republican, life long Southern Baptist evangelical social conservative now offers a primer to the Redstate youth on:
1 - The non-evangelical roots of the Huckabee surge;
2 - Why Huckabee is history as we speak; will most probably not win Iowa; and will definitely not win SC;
3 - The uniqueness of Iowa republicans; the Iowa caucus; and why it un-picks nominees;
4 - The uniqueness of the South Carolina primary and why it picks nominees;
5 - Where GOP evangelicals came from and what they have been doing since they got here; and
6 - Reagan, the evangelical.
First, Iowa, Iowa evangelicals, SC, the Huck surge and the discovery that Huck is in the wrong aka, the death of the Huck surge:
1 - Iowa’s repubs are much more liberal than most repubs, including their evangelicals.
2 - They have a pacifist tinge.
3 - History shows that who they pick is much less predictive than who SC picks
4 - Huck rose due to debate performances. He had not been vetted like Mitt and Rudy. He has vetted himself, i.e. Huck the liberal, the past two days, and the poison is killing him now. He will not win Iowa, or any other state.
5 - The GOP, unlike the dems, is much more focused ultimately on policy, not personality.
6 - Huck’s lead was also due to the fact that McCain and Rudy didn’t even compete there; Fred came late Fred; and Mitt wore out his welcome. Iowa will un-pick Huck.
7 - SC is practical. They pick conservative WINNERS. They have an advantage over Iowa as well, since they vote later.
Now, let us look at these GOP evangelicals and the allegations regularly made against them:
1 - They only care about abortion and gay marriage;
2 - They are generally big government liberals; and
3 - They want to “impose” their beliefs on the non-Christians.
Most GOP evangelicals are former Democrats. The first major conversions occurred in the late 60s and the early 70s when the Dem party turned on to secularism, tuned out God and McGovernized on defense.
Nixon won landslides.
Roe v. Wade and Dem lib praise for same; Carter’s betrayal and failures; and Reagan’s insistence that the GOP platform advocate the reversal of Roe created the Reagan democrats, a great bulk of whom were evangelicals/social conservatives.
Former Reagan speechwriter forgets history and her boss when she says:
I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I’m just not sure he’d be pure enough to make it in this party. I’m not sure he’d be considered good enough.
I laugh at all the conclusions people draw from this poll and that and this event and that. They look at a Huck ad; they look at what people are talking about on barely watched TV shows; by into a story line; assume that poll responders buy into same and voila: cause and effect.
Poppycock! Lazy writing. Simpleton logic. Fish wrapper.
Reagan was an evangelical! Reagan brought them into the party! Reagan was attacked as a fundamentalist!
Yes, Peggy, he can survive this “environment.” Both the real environment and the fake one you and the MSM construct.
In the real environment, most evangelicals are also war hawks that came into the party due to the failure of liberal dem econ policies and social issues. The Iowa version had a Mormon in first and now second and flocked to a good debater instead of the late Fred, the absent John and Rudy, and the petty nipping with Rudy, Mitt.
In a poll 4 weeks out.
Evangelicals care about abortion, gay marriage, the denigration of their values in local schools and the denial of their free speech rights.
Every law “imposes” someone’s values. But what is so interesting about the allegation against evangelicals is that they came into the political process on social issues because courts tore up the US Constitution and denied self government to them and imposed Five lawyer’s values on them.
Before Roe, the Fifty States decided the issue. The Court imposed its will.
Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman since Adam and Eve. It is courts and that seek to impose a new definition.
America was not a theocracy before the courts banned God (having already banned profanity, gum chewing and assault and battery) from school.
And, amazingly, despite the fact that evangelicals and Social conservatives constitute majorities in many states, no theocracies exist.
The GOP was a permanent minority party happy to eat the crumbs from Tip O’Neil’s table before Reagan brought in the evangelicals. They are most all war hawk, Reagan supply side, judicial conservative Americans who care about war, peace, and yes, abortion.
Finally, evangelicals will reject Huck, and soon. Most poll responders are inattentive. They saw a man do well in debate who also was not captive to the PC police when it come to quoting Jesus. They, like us, are now finding out more about Huck, and these evangelicals are CONSERVATIVE republicans. They don’t want to appease Iran; pay for Mexico’s health care; let murderers out of jail; ban smoking and french fries from Earth, the Moon and Mars; nor appease Bush Derangement sufferers and Iran.
Let me remind some of you ignorant evangelical voter definers that many of them back Romney and Giuliani. They have been the backbone of the party since 1980. They have suffered long to achieve their social goals, which just now, with Alito, got them one extra vote in 27 years. And yes, they do want to stop baby killing and keep marriage as it has been for 5000 years. All while they crave tax cuts and killing terrorists.
Evangelicals: walking and chewing gum since John The Baptist waded in the Jordan River.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
FRED08
December 17th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Sigh… I apologize for whatever insanity I’ve contributed since the Huckaboom began. I forget that people don’t start paying attention until it starts to come down to the wire. I was enough in the tank for Romney already to not be able to see Huck’s debate performances as anything special. As Huck started to boom, I couldn’t, with my overly politicized mind, see a reason for it, so along with everyone else I cast about, and could only latch on to “Christian Leader.” Then we of the political jabbering class started to learn of Huck’s AR record and saw a liberal, but the polls kept showing Huck on top. So, forgetting normal, sane people don’t get all the details at internet speed, put “Christian leader” and liberal together and started panicking, because I thought my across-the-board conservative party was leaving me. This post, along with the passage of time and some other stuff, is letting me take a deep breath and step back for a bit. Thank you, Gamecock, for reminding us polinerds of the rest of the world, and being the voice of reason.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:59 am
RE: Abortion.
The court only “imposed its will” insofar as to prevent others from imposing their will on individuals. The argument over the legal purity of the Roe decision is a silly one; it was a completely Constitutional decision. Stick to making the religious argument, not the legal one, and try to get people to “choose life.”
RE: Marriage.
The assertion that marriage has been between one man and one woman since Adam and Eve is manifestly untrue. Plenty of societies have promoted plural marriage, and continue to do so to this day. If you’re interested in specific examples, I recommend reading the Bible.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:00 am
“Evangelicals: walking and chewing gum since John The Baptist waded in the Jordan River.”
No they haven’t been. There wasn’t any such thing as an Evangelical back in those days. I was born and raised in the South. My family (immediate and extended) believe in so many different denominations (and nondenomational churches), some of them are preachers some are regular believers…but at anyways I know enough to know the above statement is not true.
Try getting two Evangelicals whose churches belong to two different parent organizations and see how well they agree. “Evangelical” is not a homogenous group of believers it’s a loose term that includes almost 2,000 different denominations that do not agree with each other except for the very basic beliefs in Christ.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Here is hoping Gamecock is right, and that responsible voters will see Huckabee for the disaster he would be for the GOP party.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:06 am
We will see.
Mike has real support and real people and taking that support to the streets - we are building some great GOTV campaigns both tied to the official campaign and one out own. Our MeetUp activity and website traffic are through the roof.
The people that are on the Hucktruck now are not going to easily get off - all these distortions and distractions of Huck’s record and of his personal integrity will be shown for what they are, political attacks. America wants a uniter and America likes what they see in Mike. The people that post and read on this and other blogs are way to deep into the primary process to be connected to a “regular” bystander. That regular bystander can see all the attacks on Mike and recognize that the pundits are scared to death of him and they will be intrigued to discover more about him. We are catching them online at HucksArmy.com and at the main site - Our message is resonating. People are switching to Huckabee.
We are starting another fund raiser on line right now - you will soon see it on line and elsewhere -
Mike is not going away anytime soon. We will take our support to the polls and beyond.
Get on the Hucktruck soon - you won’t be sorry.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:08 am
“and they will be intrigued to discover more about him.”
And here’s hoping that in their discovery process the realize the more they come to know about Huckabee, the more they realize that they don’t know the real Huckabee.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:34 am
#3 I guess my definition of the term you admit is “loose” even to you, is even looser to me!
The Apostle Paul was an evangelical!
December 17th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Huh?
December 17th, 2007 at 2:38 am
#5 If there is one thing I know about Dems, it is that they regularly turn their nomination process into a cult of personality and that Republicans care about issues. Huckabee’s own words the past few days are burying him now, as we speak. He is toast.
He will be a non-factor before the final bowl game.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:39 am
#8 Look it up
December 17th, 2007 at 2:47 am
#9 I hope so. nevertheless: this post sounds like a very drunk me on christmas after my dad died and a witch cursed me. Seriously. Ya’ll ain’t right.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Great post.
Mitt WILL win Iowa.
Probably more confident of that than of him winning the whole thing.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:05 am
That post is so unfocused I’m not even going to try to comment on it.
I will comment on the seeming cacophony of Huckabee hit pieces that flow with no Huckabee front page contributor.
If we want balance there are dozens of qualified posters. If you don’t want balance it’s the honorable thing to explain to all the readers why the blog has decided to be strictly anti-Huckabee.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Good article/post…I just hope you are right. The more I read on Huckabee
good(supposedly) and bad the more I am terrified of the prospect…
seriously I just pray that people will read up on the guy and not just
listen to his schpills. actually do some fact checkin. But thanks for the
post…it made me chill (for a second at least).
December 17th, 2007 at 3:40 am
This rambling post convinces me of nothing. Perhaps you should proofread before you post. This is incomprehensible gibberish.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Law of the Blogotrons: Don’t post drunk.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:53 am
peggy is another one of those xenophobe females in the mold of:
laura “i dont care about the latino community” ingraham
michelle “lets put muslims in concentration camps” malkin
ann -where do i even begin- coulter
these women will do everything they can to make immigration the most important issue of the 08 election. it’s FAR more important that competency on iraq which is why they ignore mccain and his connection with the surge.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Gamecock wrote an objective post.
Explaining just why Mike Huckabee is toast.
I sigh and take comfort
If just for a time
That the Huckabee rise will soon be a ghost.
Thanks, Gamecock. Maybe now I can get some sleep!
December 17th, 2007 at 7:00 am
beth wrote a poem
that really did suck
if you can’t get to sleep
I do wish you luck
burma shave
December 17th, 2007 at 7:06 am
I’m not sure why there isn’t a current Huck blogger, but if you look at the rankings, with Huck in the honorable #2 spot, I don’t think it is for any sinister reasons.
I thought the post was well thought out, but don’t see current evidence in the polls of Huck hurting himself too bad. Huck cannot win the General Election and if he were to be nominated, it would hurt our party. Giuliani, McCain….anyone but Huck. I won’t be an active Republican in 2008 if Huck is our nominee. Clinton seems more conservative and professional than he is, with the exception of a couple of key social issues. Huck is campaigning prominently on the platform of religious competition. He urges people to apply the religious test. He frequently makes comments that are NOT presidential. Chuck Norris is his chief endorsement. I pray the Evangelicals look at his policies too and vote responsibly. I would NEVER vote for Harry Reid even though we share the same religion.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Here’s a good article written by Selwyn Duke over at The American Thinker, “The Huckabee Hustle.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/the_huckabee_hustle.html
And Shawnie #20 - good point about not voting for Harry Reid.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Cute, Psycheout, I take your literary criticism with a grain of salt, seeing that your a strong Huckabee supporter.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:41 am
It was in jest, beth. Duelling poetry.
And I’m not a strong Huck supporter. But I am certainly not fond of Romney, to be sure.
I haven’t made my choice yet. I am pretty sure who I would not choose, however.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I agree with econ about the post. It seemed like rambling to me. Something stuck out on my initial read though. “Pacifist Iowa”
If thats true where is Ron Paul’s numbers there?
And, speaking of Paul, whats up with his fundraising? How does he do that? 6 mil in one day.
He will be the GOP breadwinner this quarter.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:32 am
While I appreciate Gamecock’s attempt to provide some historical context for the migration of evangelicals to the GOP, I must disagree that most evangelicals are doctrinnaire conservatives.
If you eliminate social issues, most evangelicals with which I am acquainted would become utterly uninterested in politics. More alarmingly, I saw elements of a moralist governing philosopy emerging in evangelical circles long before the rise of Huckabee. You have prominent evangelicals like Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life” and Leith Anderson, who is pastor of MN Governor Tim Pawlenty (and the new head of the National Association of Evangelicals), joining the know-nothing man-made global warming confab.
Evangelicals are among the biggest backers of local nanny-state initiatives like smoking bans here in Minnesota. When I try to explain to my fellow believers that such bans are antithetical to liberty, most will hear nothing of it. It is the “right thing” to do, I am told.
It is this same moralism-as-a-governing-philosophy that animates the Huckaboom. I fear, frankly, for the future of American Christianity as there is no governing worldview that unites evangelicals on temporal matters. Your optimism is unfounded, Gamecock.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:45 am
#25, Speaking of Rick Warren, he has jumped off the GOP bus(or never was there to begin with). He is an Obama supporter.
I agree with the smoking issue as well. I think it goes to far. However, with or without evangelical support it would pass and be the norm accross this land.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:45 am
I agree with about half of the original blog. As a Catholic who was raised evangelical, I also get sick and tired of the bigotry hurled against evangelicals (and conservative Catholics) characterizing them as stupid, naive half wits, who stand around with drool hanging out of their mouths, waiting for their pastor to give them their next thought.
However, I am also starting to see the beginnings of a change in the evangelical community, politically. Evangelical leaders are starting to separate themselves from part of the old Republican orthodoxy that evangelicals previously accepted as part of the price of admission to the coalition.
For instance, evangelicals (and other conservatives) are starting to recognize that one needn’t be an atheist, socialist, or pagan to care about the environment. Others are starting to think through the implications of applying pro-life principles to other political issues.
Finally, I think Huckabee is actually out in front of where a lot of evangelicals (and Catholics) are, or are headed politically. It is an older form of conservatism, and is less libertarian than the newer conservatism that the Reagan coalition morphed into.
And what is prompting this change? To some degree, evangelicals let Wall Street determine tax policy in the party as long as SoCons got to determine social policy. Well, Wall Street has always gotten their tax policies when the Republicans are in charge, and the SoCons get David Souter and a bunch of excuses about waiting until “hearts and minds” are changed. Sensing that they have been used, SoCons are now more willing to reevaluate the issues they surrendered to the other parts of the Republican coalition.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:53 am
As far as the Global Warming issue. I have not climbed that tree. I do, however, believe that we should be good stewards of our environment. I enjoy fishing and hunting and would like my children and grandchildren to be able to engage in those activities as well. I that regard, I am close to Bill Orielly’s stance on the issue.
When I pick up a fishing pamphlet and it says I can only eat two fish a month because of the level of toxins, something is wrong.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:54 am
MWS,
Even though I think we would disagree on some issues, I think your analysis is spot-on. Once you eliminate traditional social issues, evangelicals vote their own economic interests. Many rural evangelicals are very susceptible to the Huey Long, Mike Huckabee populism/soft-socialism that is on the rise. Coveting your neighbor’s belongings used to be considered immoral. Few evangelicals realize that the redistribution of wealth advocated by Huckabee and others is the same thing.
The Great Evangelical Crack-Up is well underway and it portends grave things for the GOP.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:57 am
#29, I would agree with the GOP breaking up. The so-con issues are most coveted by evangelicals. That is why I think Rudy’s nomination would effectively end evan. support of the GOP.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Michael, I disagree. Rudy has given the most cogent defense of appointing strict constructionists to the federal judiciary of any tier-1 candidate so I believe he has as good a chance as any to keep the coalition together (with a paperclip and a bit of duct tape).
December 17th, 2007 at 8:59 am
The GOP cannot win elections without the evan. vote.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:04 am
What needs to be understood is the GOp is a coalition, just like the dems. We need the whole coalition to win. When we are willing to continually sacrifice any par tof the coalition for a win, then we will start to see the coalition break apart.
The Coalition is brought together by the platform, not one specific interest group, and if the interest groups wants a say they need to be willing to work with the others. It’s called a compromise, and everyone needs to engage in it, not just SoCons or the Ficons.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:07 am
To hear ficons on this blog crow that we need to ditch SoCon, or vice-a-versa is pretty dumb. Ficons can’t win on their own, and Socons can’t win on their own.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Agreed, Jason. Which is why I just might surprise myself and end up supporting your candidate. I am a supporter of Hizzoner, but could easily end up supporting your man Mitt if it the only way to stop Huckabee.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Gary,
I gotta say that I think Hizzoner is trying to keep the coalition together as well. He’s been fair on his willingness to help with the emarriage issue and he’s done his best to appease pro-lifers despite his differences. Frankly that is what I think we need more of on both ends.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Jason,
But the problem is that the so-cons need to know their place. That Huckabee shot up as quickly as he did suggests that the Evangelicals are ready to crown the Huckabee the Republican nominee, fiscal conservatism be damned. Huckabee is a fiscal liberal. I’m sure the so-sons will argue that a Rudy nomination sells them out. There’s an important difference though. Rudy has said he would appoint strict constructionists. Whether you believe that or not isn’t the point but at least he is making overtures to keep every member of the tent happy. Huckabee all but spits on fiscal conservatives with his “Club for Greed” and “Party of Main Street and not Wall Street” rhetoric. Evangelicals don’t care about anything other than their so-con issues will fiscal and defense conservatives at least make minimal attempts to keep everyone in the coalition happy. That Huckabee doesn’t care about doing so shows a sort of arrogance that is wholly unacceptable.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Err…
will = WHILE fiscal and defense conservatives…
December 17th, 2007 at 9:19 am
“Hillary was already into her second term.”
That should read that Hillary was already into her third term…
December 17th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Gamecock…..Great Post!!
The HUCK-A-BUST is Coming……Jan. 3rd!!
December 17th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Gamecock can cry all he wants, Huckabee’s still winning. Maybe he’ll send you a balloon and flowers from the White House?
December 17th, 2007 at 9:30 am
These posts suggesting that so-con issues should be comprimised are ridiculous. Thre is no amount of money that is worth someone’s life.
The problem is that none of the candidates are true conservatives in the Reagan sense of that word. Even if you do not like Huckabee, when his term is over, the coalition would once again be together.
If someone like Rudy is nominated, evangelicals will probably not return. Mainly because a pro-life democrat would rise up to fill that void. If that happens, the baton will likely not be passed to Republicans for quite a while.
I find it interesting that those with so-con beliefs in this blog would cast them out in exchange for some monetary reason. Are they really convictions?
December 17th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Adam,
I agree with you 100%
Last night I watched Amapours thing on CNN about the Religous Right movement. She is really good a framing them in a negative way with scary music and dark images for the ones she obviously didn’t like, and nice images and better settings for guests she did like.
BUT…it really exposed some problamtic behavior on their part, which in the end is hurting them. Things like forcing creationism in school, a guy going around telling his flock that it’s a sin not to vote for social conservative causes, telling people that Evangelicals should win everytime. It’s a PR nightmare and it’s really dangerous for the party and the system. to suggest one part should get it’s way over the others consistantly reminds me of the scripture “Should the head tell the foot I have no need of thee” (loose paraphrase)
December 17th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Michael,
The coalition won’t even hold up enough for him to win a general election. Put down the bong.
Huckabee really has no appeal to people who follow issues are non-evangelical fiscal conservatives. None.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Michael, that is a lazy comment. Many of us seriously believe Hizzoner (or another candidate) would be a friend to the Constitution and, thus, to the Life movement.
Your statement that those who believe in economic liberty are sell-outs proves my point that evangelicals lack a coherent worldview outside social issues.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Jason,
Your reasoning is flawed. How can you possibly believe that creationism in schools is on the same level with so-con issues?
You can mince words all you want. Voting for someone who supports abortion is a SIN.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I am just saying that that was the line being pushed by Evangelicals on the show. I am not saying that all Evangelicals want that, but they have some very vocal leaders who argue for this stuff.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Huckabee will not get the nominee of the Republican Party.
He raised big taxes in Arkansas he was the Governor and
I don’t want to see another President from Hope, Arkansas where Bill
Clinton came from. I am sure Huckabee is a likeable guy-
Also, Huckabee doesn’t have any experience on foreign
policy. If Huckabee does get the nominee, I don’t think
he can beat Hillary so as Romney, McCain, and Thompson. I
believe that the news media and the Democrats have something
to do with it.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Sometimes nominees represent new parts of a coalition that has expanded.
During Bush, two groups joined the GOP in record numbers:
1) Populist Social Conservatives (prior to Bush these folks, predominantly rural or lower class were Independents and Democrats. Bush brought them in and won Ohio and Missouri with them).
2) Defense DLC (these folks were DLC Democrats who strongly supported the war. They still support the war as well as remaining liberal/moderate on issues besides the economy and the war.)
Rudy Giuliani is obviously only possible with the defense DLC Republicans. He makes attempts to appease regular Republicans but his base is formed from former Democrats/Independents who are Republicans mostly because of terrorism/war. In 1996 or 1992 a character like Rudy would simply have been dead on arrival outside of New England. Rudy has a respectable following in the West and Midwest. We can blame defense DLC Republicans for that.
Similarly the populist social conservatives make possible Mike Huckabee. He is really a compromise between the Buchananites and the populists Bush brought in to the Party. Without Bush, Huckabee could never push as far towards the center as he does on economic issues.
What’s surprising is that these two groups are able to exert influence on the nomination so soon after entering the party. It makes me wonder if many rank and file Republicans of the 1990’s have already moved on from Reagan Republicanism to embrace Rudy or Huckabee Republicanism.
That would explain why they now hold 40% support despite Republicans knowing neither agrees with the Party platform.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:44 am
ECG
I know you not offering conclusion but observations, yet my conlcusion is the coalition of SoCons, FiCons and Defense Cons needs to be held together by a leader who supports all three. To push a leader who only supports one end is bad for every group.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:44 am
MWS:
I couldn’t agree more with that analysis. Socons have been played for suckers for decades. Socons were promised plenty, but little was delivered. They were supposed to get a seat at the table as long as they shut up. No longer.
The attacks on Huckabee from conservative elites are going to alienate a lot of evangelicals. They were fine with getting the socon vote, but never intended one of them to actually have any power.
Perhaps those chickens are coming home to roost.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:45 am
#45, Gary,
I do believe in economic liberty. I understand all of the economic issues expoused on this site. You should be realistic though. Do you think that any economic issue is more important than life?
As far as economic policy, I think most in this country have begun to believe lies. I happen to like the way the Arkansas bugetary process works. (it must balance) That is a great concept that should be used at the federal level as well.
Buying on debt will bring only temporary economic satisfaction. True economic liberty would be a country that is debt free. We expouse views of conservatism while countries like the China are piling up our money. This causes foreign policy issues as well.
Maybe you are the one who should think outside of a single issue.
If you believe that so-con issues are less important than any other issue, you need to check yourself.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:45 am
#5, “America wants a uniter and America likes what they see in Mike.”
What? Hate to tell you this, but Mike is anything but a uniter. If
he wins the nomination, I will no longer be able to call the Republican
party home.
Evangelicals are NOT America.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:45 am
37 Adam
By way of contrast, one could say Rudy spits on SoCons when he uses the lexicon of the pro-abortion crowd, like how he’s against “throwing women in jail” (as though most pro-lifers were for it) and supports a “right to choose.” At the same time, one can say that Huck’s extended FiCons the olive branch: signing the Norquist tax pledge, staking his run on the fair tax, and balancing the budget in AR.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Psycheout, MWS,
I think the Evangelicals had a pretty good seat at the table with GWB.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:47 am
It is precisely this kind of attitude that will split the GOP. How tolerant of you.
Evangelicals are Americans. They are a significant portion of Republican voters. Turn them away at your peril.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Psycheout,
He didn’t say they weren’t american.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I would agree with #54.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:51 am
More bigotry. Preach to the socons but grant them nothing. Take their votes but deliver nothing in return. That trick isn’t going to work forever.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Rudy pulls out of new hampshire. metro must be in denial. those ads that would inform everybody about how he is the ‘greatest’ republican ever apparently didn’t work and now he is, once again, runnign way from a fight. retreat from ames, retreat from iowa, retreat now from new hampshire and all states before flordia. the only problem is now he is in third place in florida.
at some point he has got to take on his weak spots witha vengance and overcome them. romney chose to do that early on and is now reaping the rewards.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:52 am
It is easier for me to side with someone who has a record on so-con issues and promises to govern as a fis-con.
Rudy is a fis-con promising to act like a so-con, when he admits there is nothing wrong with it.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Pstcheout,
They do need to know their place, just like Ficons do and everyone else do. This isn’t the Evangelical party, Defense party or fiscal party it’s the conservative party.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Hopefully Rudy’s candidacy will be squashed.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:54 am
#56 I didn’t say Evangelicals are not Americans. I am merely
pointing out that they do not represent the rest of us — far
from it!
It’s the Evangelicals that are not being tolerant. It’s the whole
mentality of “We’re going to elect one of us, so !#$% you”
that is so intolerant. It is the Evangelicals who are turning
everyone else away.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Michael,
What about a guy with so many ethical lapses asHuckabee. I don’t even care about his record, what concerns me is all the ethical crap behind this guy.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Adam, et al.,
“But the problem is that the so-cons need to know their place.”
THAT’S the kind of mentality that will break up the Reagan coalition. Indeed, SoCons are supposed to deliver the votes, then get to the back of the bus.
Could anyone here imagine Bush, or any other Republican delivering this speech:
“I would love to see a day in America where marginal tax rates could come down. I long and pray for the day when Americans are not divided over capital gains and dividend taxes. Inheritance taxes have for too long been an issue that divides Americans. I would love for these rates to get cut or eliminated, but the fact is, Americans are divided on these issues, and we simply cannot move forward until WE CHANGE THE HEARTS AND MINDS of our fellow Americans. The battle for lower taxes MUST BE WON IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF AMERICANS FIRST. Until that day, there’s really nothing I can do.”
December 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am
But you want to turn them away because you don’t agree with them. That’s a pretty large segment of the population, Colorado, too bad they’re here to stay.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am
65,
Seems like Romney’s the one that’s played fast and loose with the crap…
December 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Jason,
“I think the Evangelicals had a pretty good seat at the table with GWB.”
Not really. Bush is one of those guys who will move heaven and earth for tax cuts- damn the torpedos- but meekly shrugs and says we “have to change hearts and minds” before we stop the murder of innocent children. See post #65.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Yeah, you’re right. It’s not like there’s a lot of people saying they won’t support the nominee if it’s Huckabee.
/sarc
I’ve read commenters here at Race 4 2008 who say they will vote Clinton over Huckabee. Isn’t that tolerant?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Peter,
please show me all the gifts romney took, all his missing computers, or all the pardons he gave based on political contributions. Also show me the 60,000 he too from a nonprofit and never reported.
When you’ve got that, you have point.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:00 am
EGS,
Interesting thoughts in #49. I think there is a lot of truth there. Although to some extent, I think the people that Huckabee is drawing on in the Republican party are not necessarily so new, just ignored.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Indeed. It’s been bait and switch for socons for far too long. It’s money over morals every time.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Many here think that the evangelicals are the stupid little cousins that are supposed to elect our nominee then go back into hiding for four years……
December 17th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Too bad old Mitt ain’t been able to keep up the con game after John Rudy and Fred blew it…
December 17th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Jason,
Please show me where Mitt! defended the right of unborn children to live when he was campaigning for state office in a liberal state.
When you’ve got that, you have a point.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:03 am
#73, Thats exactly what was proven in responses to my posts on this site.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:04 am
PEter, all,
The problem is Evangelicals and their detractors view it as all or none. It just doesn’t make for unity and getting things done. You really need to undrstand Evangelicals have “a” seat at the table, not “The” seat at the table. If you want your movement to succeed you have to make sure you keep your seat and not throw it away by forcing something like an unethical liberal on the party.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Jason you know the criticism against Romney isn’t that he’s unethical but that he has no principle. The various videos showing him conveniently changing positions on CFR, abortion, immigration reform and Reagan’s legacy give him the appearance of a phony to some.
I give Romney the benefit of the doubt and don’t think he’s just being politically expedient.
None of our candidates are perfect or ideal on a personal level.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
MWS, I notice you kept it to campaigning.
But aparrently you have no problem with dubious ethics and cronyism as long as it is from a pro-lifer.
Your movement will end quickly if that is the case.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I can’t believe that the strength of Huckabee’s support is so mystifying to so many here. Ultimately, for many of his supporters, it comes down to this:
With Huckabee, SoCons know they aren’t being conned yet again. They know that they aren’t nominating “Lucy,” who will pull the football away for the umpteenth time. They know that we not only get to be on the bus, but that we will even get to drive it some too!
How’s that for mixing metaphors?
The Republican party has N-E-V-E-R nominated ANYONE nearly as committed to the right to life as Mike Huckabee. At least not since it became an issue.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Jason doesn’t understand that people are tired of the “lesser evil” like Mitt that feeds them a load of crap and no real change.
We gave that a try with the Bushes and look how little has been done on pro-life issues?
Not one President has ever attended the annual march for life. I’m sure Mitt would continue that proud tradition.
Hey-maybe we’d get a text message or something?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:07 am
ECG,
The fact that you equate changing a position with accepting bribes for pardons and tax evasion is really eye opening.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Jason, if there was compelling proof that Huckabee had accepted bribes he’d be in prison. I require a higher level of proof before I blindly accept an accusation like that.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Jason,
SoCons don’t really have a seat at the table. We cook, prepare, and serve the food, and then wait to see if we can feed on the scraps.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am
How about a lady who never donated to Huckabee, until her husband was denied parole. Then she donates and Wala, clemency. Then she never donates again. Sounds pretty good.
How about 60,000 that was just never reported?
How 300,000 in computers destroyed when he left office?
We lost big time in 2006 for dubious ethics. How is Huckabee going to bring us out of that?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Huckabee gets hit hard on this site. He needs someone to defend him here. Why isn’t there anyone?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:13 am
MWS,
Maybe you should define what a seat at the table means.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Jason,
First off, I reject the premise that Huckabee was/is corrupt.
But EVEN IF he were, I’d rather have a politician who accepts bribes and protects innocent life, than one isn’t bribed and applaudes and champions the slaughter of the innocent life.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:15 am
MWS,
That’s a joke. Very few people will view abortion in the first trimester as slaughter of human life. Everyone will view Huckabees actions as unethical.
Besides a sin is a sin right?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:17 am
And what do you reject it on? It’s ok to destroy all your records? It’s ok not to report 60,000? It’s ok to pardon people based on contributions to your campaign?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Jason,
Here are pictures during the first trimester after an abortion:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm
This is what your candidate supported.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Sit down and shut up, socons. Vote for the establishment candidate. That’s your role. That’s your “seat” at the table.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Jason if a pardon (Huckabee doesn’t have the power to pardon) could be proven to be linked to a contribution Huckabee would be in jail.
Excuse me if I don’t simply swallow every accusation that flies against a Presidential candidate.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
They can also already hear the voice of other people near the mother at this stage. Including their father.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:23 am
MWS,
‘THAT’S the kind of mentality that will break up the Reagan coalition.’
What are you talking about??!! Errrrgggghhhh. It’s the victim mentality of the so-cons that will break
up the coalition if they keep it up. Guess what, I happen to be *extremely* pro-life, pro-marriage,
and all the rest, but I am also smart enough to see that what Jason is saying is absolutely true, we all
have to work together! What the rest of the party is wondering, is why the heck can’t the Huckabee supporters
see that he is a complete trainwreck for the rest of the coalition??
I want low taxes AND no abortion!
I want a strong defense AND protection for marriage!
I want no amnesty AND strong families.
Huckabee is so 1-dimensional, he only fits half the bill (or less). He is a completely flawed candidate for the rest of the party. The beef the rest of us have is not that he is a so-con, but that he is nothing else! And the persecution that the evangelicals think they are feeling is just the rest of us wondering why the heck Huckabee supporters are so ready to abandon ship to support a one-legged candidate!?? Jason is right, we are only going to win the general if we all stick together. We need to have everyone on board or we loose to Clinton and the liberals. It’s as simple as that.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. We WANT the so-cons in the party. Heck, I AM one. But I support Romney because while he is not perfect, he has the best chance to unite EVERYONE in the party, not just one faction like Huckabee or Giuliani. The frustration of the rest of us is why that is so difficult for people to see. He is completely obvious as the unifying candidate if people can get over the fact that he is Mormon. And don’t give me excuses about flip-flopping, because I have seen way more of that coming from the other candidates — it doesn’t hold any water.
Despite all the naysaying to the contrary, Mitt is the Uniter, not Huckabee. That is why he is strong in Iowa AND New Hampshire, South Carolina AND Michigan, Nevada AND Florida. He can win. Huckabee and Giuliani are flawed candidates in that they are not multi-dimensional, and will CERTAINLY loose the general. It’s as simple as that. And if we as a party choose not to coalesce around the candidate that can win, then God help us, because the Clintons will be in charge, and no one on this board — not you, not me, not Metro, TLG, or anybody else is going to get what they want. We either stick together, or we fail alone. And I’m not so sure that God would be happy with any of us; In his words, “If ye are not one, then ye are not mine”.
Our forefathers were able to put aside their theological and political differences, and with God’s help they created the greatest nation the world has ever seen. I believe God is testing us to see if we can do the same. Millions of unborn children have been destroyed already. Are you ready to tell God that you fought for their preservation by abandoning the rest of the party? I’m not. No one is more pro-life than me. No one. But I am smart enough to know that to get what I want, I need to support the candidate that will attract all factions of the party. I don’t know how to say this more clearly. I simply don’t know what else to say.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Jason,
“That’s a joke. Very few people will view abortion in the first trimester as slaughter of human life. ”
I don’t think abortion is a joke. Nor is the objective truth of what is and is not human life altered based upon how voters “view” it. That is a Romney calculation, and is a good example of how he flits around on the issue based upon his target constituency.
(Jason) “Besides a sin is a sin right?”
Maybe to Mormons (I don’t know). But to Catholics, there are degrees of sin, based upon their intrinsic qualties as well as their outcomes. For instance, murder is a more severe sin than lying to your mother about feeding the dog your meatloaf.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am
This doesn’t need to be an either/or situation. This party has been and needs to continue to be a three legged stool, and even though FT qualifies, he doesn’t seem to want it badly enough. Mitt Romney can pull this party back together and win this election, and this country will be far better for putting him there. He is extremely intelligent and I believe he has a tremendous amount of integrity. I honestly don’t think the Mormon issue will be much of an issue by November 2008. I would venture to say if he is our nominee, he will not only win the election, but win it handily.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am
MWS,
Actually Mormons see degrees of sins, my understanding is Evangelicals don’t.
I ma not saying abortion is a joke, what I am saying the argument is a joke. Evangelicals need to understand they don’t operate in a vacuum, and that most the world a certain world view they need to work with.
I like Evangelicals, but there tactics are clearly seperating in how tey conduct this. There is a lot of comone ground we can achieve, the problem is Evangelicals (or at least the Huck supporting type) have no desire to find it.
So be it. Vote for Huck and enjoy.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Colorado,
“No one is more pro-life than me. No one. But I am smart enough to know that to get what I want, I need to support the candidate that will attract all factions of the party. I don’t know how to say this more clearly. I simply don’t know what else to say.”
I appreciate your passion on the right to life, I really do. But I don’t know how to say this more clearly:
I DO NOT TRUST MITT ROMNEY’S CONVERSION.
God forbid, after his inaugeration, he shall have yet another family anecdote that will completely change his mind yet again on the protection of innocent life.
And Romney’s Mormonism has nothing to do with it. If Huck were Mormon and Mitt! were evangelical (or a Catholic like me) I would still support Huck. Sure, EVERY candidate adjusts at least a couple positions a little bit to fit the constituency. Generally, they do this with issues they are not as passionate about. And one of those issues that Mitt is not passionate about is the right to life.
I am sick and tired of being conned.
I don’t know how else to say that.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Jason, perhaps I’m an old foogie but I wonder if maybe a good place or the best place to find common ground is at the convention.
Perhaps if we go into the convention without a nominee we’ll have more freedom to air our differences and work through them.
I’m generally of the belief that grievances can only be solved through open dialog.
Perhaps it’s best if each of us support the nominee that is closest to us on the issues or their approach. Then when we enter the convention we can compromise in the open in good faith.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:40 am
coloradorepublican: #96 That was a great post!! Thank you!!
December 17th, 2007 at 10:52 am
MWS,
Well, if the GOP can’t coalesce, then the GOP is lost as a party and as a force for doing good.
And btw, Romney’s Mormonism has everything in the world to do with it, because if he renegs on
his abortion and other so-con stances, then he will have the entire Mormon constituency out to
tar and feather him, and I will personally be first in line. There is no way he is going to
have as you say “another family anecdote”.
Good luck to you on ending abortion. You’re complaint is that you don’t trust what Romney has
said, but I KNOW that Huckabee is not a complete candidate. I would rather support someone that
has a chance to do something, than support someone that will not have a chance to do anything.
I am afraid that in supporting Huckabee you will not be left with just nothing, as you’ve complained
that you’ve been left with before (and btw, how can anyone say that now that we are just one vote
shy of overturning roe vs. wade??), you will be left with LESS THAN NOTHING!
As far as abortion goes, this election means everything, and I mean EVERYTHING! Despite the complaints
of those that are impatient, the GOP has been trying hard to get constructionist judges through the
confirmation process, and now we are just 1 vote shy of making history. Don’t be impatient. Don’t
abandon ship at the point when victory is in sight. Rest assured, there is NO WAY Romney will appoint
anyone other than a judge who will give us an overturning of Roe vs. Wade. He has reasserted time and
again, that that is his first priority for abortion. But, if we let the Clintons take the White House, then good-bye to all of our progress. The next president will likely nominate multiple justices to the SC, and if it’s Hillary, then we will have a set back for decades and decades.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:53 am
This is amazing.
Attention Fiscal Republicans – Time for YOU to compromise as well.
We gave you what you wanted for 30 years. 30 YEARS. Now when we have a candidate that comes up the ranks and does his due time (13 years in executive office as Gov/ Lt Gov and still has a tremendous approval rating is a damn good record.) and has goals and a vision for this country, now we are going to support him.
You Fiscal Cons are just pissed because you are not getting your way. you sound like little children. We (Evangelicals) have waited long enough. We have a candidate that comes from us. We are going to promote him. Feel free to slam him – it’s your prerogative. We will not sit idly by and let you kill the heart and soul of America based on your impression of what may or may not happen to your damn stock portfolios. America is a strong country. We have a strong economy. When making the choice between a person who is fiscally conservative and socially conservative is presented, we will choose the socially and morally conservative. You can hire and appoint great fiscal policy makers. You cannot hire or appoint a moral compass. When a commander in chief is presented with tough decisions I want to know that his moral compass points true north. That is the crux of this issue. You can “work around” a fiscal moderates position on the economy (by appointing a great fiscal conservative), you cannot do the same with a socially moderate or liberal. He must be strong, he must speak well, he must be likable, and he must espouse and support socially conservative values, or in other words - Mike Huckabee.
Mike will win the nomination. You have no idea what we have in store. You think the surge is over? you have seen the first wave. just wait, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Mike is loved far and wide - all the smears and ethical allegations that are coming out have no staying power. People can see right through them. Mike can be trusted, unlike ANY other Republican candidate save Fred.
Also, see this great Human Events article from today:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23998
December 17th, 2007 at 11:01 am
#104. This is exactly the kind of “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”! mentality that is going to sink the Republican party. God have mercy on our souls.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:04 am
#105, Then come support us before its too late.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Brett,
Ficons say the same thing you do. That they have been underrepresented.
Your post is all or none. It won’t get you anywhere, except maybe into a pity party.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
#101, Econ, actually I’m dreading that scenario, because I am afraid it will just degenerate into religion bashing. Religion has been way too much of a divisive issue this election. I would not want to see a convention with an Evangelical candidate opposed by a Mormon candidate. I really hope it doesn’t come to that.
#102. Thanks. Unfortunately, I’m not sure it will do any good though.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Colorado,
I agree that electability is certainly important. But there is nothing in polling data that would suggest that Romney is more electable than Huck. Certainly not enough to justify jettisoning the sure thing on social issues, in exchange for the guy whose views always match his constintuency. I don’t need cynical reasons like “Mormons would abandon him” to be certain that Huckabee would govern as a pro-life President. And as to electability, all the five have a knock against them.
1. Romney: Some people don’t trust him, some won’t vote for a Mormon.
2. Rudy: Social liberal, SoCons stay home in droves.
3. Huckabee: Scares the Royalists.
4. McCain: Ticked off the base with immigration reform, campaign finance, and comments made years ago about the religious right.
5. Thompson: Uninspiring, and hasn’t shown the energy or commitment that it will take to win.
Now that we’ve established that our current crop (like everyone before) will all have electability issues (some more than others), perhaps we can vote our conscience?
December 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I am becoming more and more convinced that the GOP is doomed, perhaps for a generation at least.
ALl three legs of the famous stool have been thoroughly discredited. It is the symptom of the playing out of a set of ideas. The GOP is going to have to go into exile and reformulate some sort of a new ideology - and it will no doubt be a reaction to the reality that will be enacted by the next democratic presidents (especially if it turns out to be Obama - who would really usher in a new political age).
The ficons are discredited. Their core ideology - supply side economics has now been put to two direct tests, and one indirect one, and has come up wanting on all counts. Reagan promised to increase defense spending, cut taxes and balance the budget. The whole promise of supply-side was that all three could happen at the same time. Two out of thre might not be bad in most circumstances, but in this case, two out of three means the ideology is wrong. Traditional economics always predicted that you could do two out of these three things simultaneously. The national debt exploded. Supply-side refuted.
Bush Sr. and then Clinton raised taxes. Supply side ideology predicted economic disaster. The result though was that the budget became balanced and we had the greatest economic expansion in history. Once again, supply side refuted.
GWB gave us one last attempt at supply side. He cut taxes, and revenues went down, not up, and he has larded on another 2 trillion dollars of debt obligations onto our children. Three strikes and you are out.
In the end, all that GOP ficonism managed to accomplish was to end the trend that had operated since the begining of the nation - that real income and real wealth of the average person would inexorably go up. Supply side has given us obscene economic imbalance, with the rich getting unbelievably richer, and everyone else stagnating. Just as most rational people predicted. Ficon-ism is over.
The socons are discredited too. For a generation now, first with abortion, and now with a larger agenda, they have demonstrated a fundamental misreading of what America is all about. America is all about liberty. Religion and morality are subjects that free people can define for themselves - consistent with the principles of the Protestant Reformation, in which theological authority was taken out of the hands of the great power, the Vatican, and placed in the hands of the people, who could read their bibles for themselves. In America, everyone is free to find their own way on spiritual and religious questions. Any attempt to marshall the power of government to impose one set of values will be resisted, for it violates the fundamental vision of America.
When the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, they took the issue of abortion out of the hands of GOVERNMENT and put it in the hands of INDIVIDUALS. Socons have carried on a generation-long argument, profoundly dishonest, that tries to pretend that the Supreme Court somehow represents federal government power. They argue that power over abortion should be taken away from the federal government and placed back at the state level. But the truth is that the SC gave the power to individual women. Socons are really arguing for taking rights away from individuals and turning them back over to state governments. Most people see through this dishonesty. The Roe compromise has had a very stable majority support amongst the people and that will not change.
The other main issue of socons these days is gay marriage. Once again, the socons are out of touch with the evolving understanding in America. Everyone knows that deep down, the real motivator here is bigotry toward homosexuals. CIVIL marriage - the only issue here, is a package of considerations given to couples, under the law, that recognizes the reality of the role that couples play in society - as social units and as heads of families. When gay couples play such roles, then the same package of considerations under the law must be provided to them - if there is any meaning to justice and equality under law. A large majority of Americans understand that. There is still a majority that resists calling this “marriage”, but that resistance is eroding as everyone comes to understand the games that the socns are playing here. Socons are on the wrong side of history.
The only other main issues that socons seem to be identified with are such inanities as trying to get bible stories given equal time in science classes, and pretending that the 10 commandments are the real constitution of our nation. None of that silliness is going anywhere either.
Finally, milcons are totally discredited as well. They have allowed the neocon community to give them their operating ideology, and the result has been a disaster. Our standing as the moral leaders in the world has eroded, while the most effective weapons that we can bring to bear to shape the world - our ideas, our economic leverage have been abandonded with a reliance on military power to affect the world. We have asked our military to do the things - like building democracy - that they are not trained to do, while all of our soft power tools have been unused. Ginning up fear amongst the populace, and proposing only the use of beligerance and force does not make for an effective foreign policy.
So all three legs of the stool have been played out to their absurd extremes. America understands this, and is ready to try something new.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:30 am
“He had not been vetted like Mitt and Rudy.”
Right. Like Mitt and Romney have faced a FRACTION of the scrutiny Huckabee…the MOST HONEST of the three…has faced.
Romney has been treated with kid-gloves. Amazing how his religion is off-limits while Huckabee’s every pastoral utterance is fair-game.
Rudy is an adulterer. An adulterer. An adulterer. an unapologetic, in-his-childrens’ faces adulterer. A baby-murder advocating adulterer. A fagophile adulterer.
Scrutiny?
Sheesh!
December 18th, 2007 at 3:33 am
If Rudy is vetted, it is not with the GOP base…those of us who believe in the sanctity of life and the importance of commitment to one’s vows. If Mitt has been vetted, the GOP should apologize to John Kerry for labeling him a flip-flopper as if flip-flopping was somehow not good in a POTUS candidate.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
[...] Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer The HinzSight Report The Minority Report Huck is history in the Race 4 2008 “One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson FRED08 by Gamecock @ 5:52 [...]
January 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
[...] Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer The HinzSight Report The Minority Report Huck is history in the Race 4 2008 “One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson by Gamecock @ 3:17 pm. [...]
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 am
[...] Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer The HinzSight Report The Minority Report Huck is history in the Race 4 2008 “One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson by Gamecock @ 12:59 am. [...]
February 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
[...] Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer The HinzSight Report The Minority Report Huck is history in the Race 4 2008 “One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson by Gamecock @ 6:12 pm. [...]
February 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
[...] Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer The HinzSight Report The Minority Report Huck is history in the Race 4 2008 “One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson by Gamecock @ 2:02 pm. [...]
February 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
[...] Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer The HinzSight Report The Minority Report Huck is history in the Race 4 2008 “One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson by Gamecock @ 1:01 pm. [...]