Friday, November 09, 2007
|
|
The Dilemma Of The Values Voter: A Vote For Huckabee Is A Vote For Giuliani
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:39 PM
|
Today's flurry of speculation about the intentions of Dr. Dobson underscores (1)the influence of the Focus on the Family leader, and (2)the desperation of the Huckabee forces to keep hope alive. The statement from Dobson's long time associate Tim Minnery that "Dr. Dobson isn't close to an endorsement of anyone in the 2008 race," is a clear signal to the Huckabee forces to stop trading on the Dobson brand, and may itself undermine Huckabee's appeal to evangelicals by focusing a light on Dobson's non-endorsement of the former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist pastor.
Why Dobson and many other leading evangelicals have withheld support from Huckabee is up for them to explain or not, but clearly there are two possible explanations: (1)Governor Huckabee's record in Arkansas isn't conservative on crucial issues like personnel and taxes, and/or (2)Governor Huckabee cannot possibly win the nomination so an endorsement or vote for Huckabee is really an assist to Rudy Giuliani as it diverts energy from the conservative most likely to stop Giuliani --Mitt Romney.
Of course I am favorably impressed with Romney, but I am also fully prepared to work as hard for Rudy if he is the nominee. Many evangelicals are not, however, and here is what gives many conservatives pause about even dallying with Huckabee. They know that if Huckabee beats Romney in Iowa or bleeds him in New Hampshire, the Giuliani nomination is almost guaranteed.
Let me break this down for the Steelers' fans.
First, the campaign calendar is so compressed that there is very little time for momentum unassisted by money to make a race for the Florida primary in the last week of January or for the big delegate haul on February 2. To be competitive in Florida or the following week in California, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere requires an infrastructure to be in place and firing on all cylinders now. Most of these states will have absentee ballots available even before New Hampshire votes, and in some of them the early voting numbers are huge. Only Romney and Giuliani have anything like the finances necessary to compete, and those finances cannot materialize for Huckabee even if he scored an upset win in Iowa. If Huckabee had established his viability with fundraising during the money primary he might have made a plausible case about his chance of parlaying the Big Mo of Iowa into the nomination, but an Iowa win is a necessary but not sufficient condition of momentum. Money is the second part of that equation when you are facing an extraordinarily well-funded front runner with enormous positive name identification.
Second, if Huckabee beat Romney in Iowa, and drained some votes from Romney in New Hampshire, where would the vast majority of Romney voters go? Not to Huckabee, I think. A Romney voter is looking for a completely different sort of conservative candidate --a pro-life, pro-marriage conservative, yes, but one who also understands the economy and the war, is rock solid reliable on judges and is most certainly free trade to the core. Huckabee's neo-protectionist rhetoric and fair tax endorsement cost him with this group.
Finally, everybody likes Mike, but very few people --and zero political professionals who aren't on the payroll-- think he stands a chance against Team Hillary despite his claims to have been successfully battling the Clintons in Arkansas this past decade. The idea that a country tired of an evangelical former Texas governor in the White House who has pushed unpopular immigration policies might be persuaded to be enthusiastic about evangelical former Arkansas governor who is also pro-regularization of illegals is not just far fetched. It is hallucinatory. Sure I'll work for Huckabee if lightning strikes, but with the same certain dread of defeat that dogged the Dole campaign in 1996. I think both Rudy and Mitt can beat Senator Clinton because they change they expand the map for the GOP and have tremendous media power. Huckabee would start out dogged by the similarities in background and region to President Bush, and without Ohio and zero hopes of reaching into Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey or Connecticut.
These three factors led me at dinner last night to ask a gathering of evangelicals in Las Vegas for the GodBlogCon two questions.
The first was how many could never bring themselves to vote for Rudy Giuliani. Of about 25 at dinner, at least five raised their hands and spoke in the most emphatic terms as to why they would never vote for him. Whether others agreed and kept silent, or whether these five would relent when the prospect of a Hillary presidency confronted them I can't say, but this was a sure sign of trouble for a Giuliani-led GOP.
The second question was directed at those Huckabee supporters among the Giuliani irreconciliables: Did they not understand that a vote for Huckabee was a vote for Giuliani given the quite obvious dynamics of the primaries. They might like Huckabee. They might love Huckabee. But Huckabee isn't going to be the nominee, and thus a vote for him is a vote thrown away from establishing Romney as a conservative alternative to Giuliani.
Long ago I taught Torts. The concept of foreseeability as a component of liability is second nature to lawyers, but perhaps it is not intuitive outside of the law. If an action will foreseeably result in a consequence, even if that consequence is not an immediate one, then the action is understood to cause the consequence. Voting for Huckabee has only one foreseeable result --weakening Romney-- which itslef has one foreseeable result: nominating Rudy. Jaw, jaw, jaw all day, but those are the facts.
Which is why I fully expect Giuliani (and McCain) supporters in Iowa to cast ballots for Huckabee, inflating his numbers (and momentum, just as happened at the straw poll in the fall) and perhaps wounding Romney. The true-believers will dismiss such an analysis but that's what I would do if I was a Giuliani supporter in Iowa, and that's what you would do if you were a Giuliani supporter in Iowa. If Romney gets knocked out, it is on to the general with Rudy.
Which is why I will be surprised if Jim Dobson endorses Huckabee. Justice Stevens is 87. Justice Ginberg is 74. Justices Scalia and Kennedy are 71. Justice Beyer is 69. Justice Souter is 68. A President Clinton or a President Giuliani will have at least two and could have perhaps as many as six Supreme Court appointments to make over the next eight years. A vote for Huckabee by a voter who doesn't trust Rudy on judicial nominations --I do, but this is about the choice facing the anti-Giuliani Huckabee voter--is a vote to abandon the Supreme Court to activist justices for more than a generation.
Go ahead, Huckabee people, try and make Rudy's day. I don't think a Huckabee win in Iowa will materialize any more than the endorsements of Dr. Dobson materialized today. The values voter who cares deeply about beating Hillary and also about policies to protect marriage and the unborn will not be frivolous with their vote, a dynamic that is working to assist the Romney campaign every day as clarity about the race develops.
What I shake my head in anticipation of is the day in March when I hear a former Huckabee supporter tell me that he or she won't vote for much less work for or contribute to a Giuliani campaign.
|
|
|
Well thought, well explained, Hugh. |
|
the Huckster terrorizes Hugh, He is gonna take Romneybots votes !!!1!! oh my what are we gonna do? religious people might choose Huckabee and if they do they are anti Osmond family bigots..... oh Gawd we must save them by insulting them. Don't you know you are an idiot why if you vote for Huckabee ...that is like voting for Guiliani but not for Mittbot and you are punching your ticket to hellllllll
dirL |
|
Fred, Huck and McCain don't have the organization and/or money to beat Romney now. A vote for any of them is indeed a vote for Rudy.
Personally, I think the 2 most competent men have emerged as valid frontrunners. But one of them is far less conservative than the other. |
|
|
A vote for Huckabee is a vote for ALL 669 convicted criminals whose sentences he commuted. |
|
...than telling someone how to vote, and using scare tactics to boot...
Face it. Hugh is carrying a lot of water for Romney. This isn't "well thought" Lori. This is pro-Romney hysteria. If pro-life was the most important thing for me (it isn't), there is no way I'd vote for Mitt. He is a last minute convert, and either McCain, Thompson, or Huckabee would be a more honest, trustworthy choice. Huckabee scares Hugh for the same reason he scares all the Romney folks: he is everything Romney is not. Romney is slick, Huckabee is unadorned; Romney is rich, and born that way, Huckabee not; Romney is a Northeastern elite, Huckabee a Southerner by birth and life; Romney a successful businessman who went into politics, Huckabee a lifelong public servant. Most importantly, Huckabee is easily, naturally charming, whereas Mitt is plastic, sunny but robotic.
I think Mitt would do a fine job as President. But I don't trust him to hold to his positions for more than five minutes past the Republican nomination.
But back to my orginal point - it is insulting beyond belief to tell people they "have to vote for X, or else." Voters can make up their own minds, thank you. No own owns or is owed my vote.
|
|
doesn't like Giuliani, but can possibly support some Mormon, so he will let Huckabee twist in the wind so the Mormon beats the fallen papist WOP.
Dobson is lowlife. So is Robertson. When I think Christian I do not think of them.
Now I understand Hugh loves Mitt. Heck, even Andrew Sullivan said he would take Mitt any day over Giuliani.
I have to admit I am leaning more and more to Romney all the time. Especially with the economy starting to tank, maybe Romney has the skills to soften the fall and start the recovery. I like Rudy a lot. I really like Fred. But so far only Fred has has the guts to stand up to these Elmer Gantry charlatans. |
|
What makes you think Giulaini would not pick better judges and justices as Mitt Romney would?
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found." http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/romne y_jurist_picks_not_tilted_to_gop/
|
|
I'm not with you on the support of Guiliani thing after the Primaries. Not one bit. But I am with you as far as Romney goes.
If things change before the primary gets to Washington State and it looks like Thompson or Huckabee have emerged as a front runner, then i'll definately support one of them over Rudy. But for now my support goes to Mitt Romney.
He's more conservative than President Bush and has a great mind for business. Ive known several Mormon's in my life and although we agree on almost zero when it comes to our religious differences, we almost always agree on politics.
I expect Romney is very similar to those friends I grew up with and that is why he will get my support, for now.
However, Rudy will not get my support and no amount of scare mongering is going to change that. I still regret my vote for Arnold in California. I'm not going to hold my nose and vote anymore. |
|
People aren't going to vote for Romney because there's no connect. Romney is plastic. He's smart. He has a lot of experience, but he has a way more liberal background than Huckabee. At one time or another I think he's shared about all of Rudy's stances that we are bothered by. Mitt will say what he needs to say to get elected and I think it's becoming quite obvious to a lot of us.
There are times when you must vote for the one you believe in the most. This is primary season. It's the time to elect the one we want. The grass roots like Huckabee because he's genuine. He's a communicator on the level of Reagan. Romney certainly has not prove to be able to move a crowd with a speech. Huckabee has a great record. Check him out people. You can read his positions on his site as well as view many of his speeches. |
|
he leaves out a further truth-
A vote for Huckabee may be a vote for Guiliani,
BUT
A vote for Romney is a vote for Hillary!
If Romney gets the nomination, as Hugh so desperately wants him to do, he has NO chance of winning the general. The Hillary supporters would love it if Romney upset Rudy. Rudy is the only guy they're genuinally worried about. The only guy that has the chance to win Florida and Ohio.
So here are your choices, as a conservative:
1. If you want to keep Hillary out, swallow your disagreeements and vote for Rudy- its your only chance.
2.If you figure that Hillary probably will win anyhow (and by the way, you're most likely right, and everyone knows it) and you want to keep the GOP in the right direction, vote for Huck, at least he's honest and likeable.
3.If you're a talk-show host who likes to shill for your favorite candidate while pretending to be neutral, trying to sell a book and hoping for some high up government position should your man win, then by all means vote for Romney. If these qualifications don't apply to you, however, I'd pass on this option...
|
|
He is a fine man, but I think he is to attached to a populist message, economically, and that I cannot equate, populism, with conservatism.
His populism sounds too much like other ism's that though he would not go willingly, as in knowingly, down the road of FDR'ism, I fear that is where he will take us.
So my first choice is Fred, and my second is Mitt, and third is Rudy. Yes, it's an admixture of content, style, and victory, and if Mike is the nominee, sure I will be with him. Those on the other side are categorically unacceptable for reasons to numerous to relate. |
|
Joe, that article isn't talking about the equivalent of Supreme Court Justices or even Judicial Nominees as the article calls them. Here's Romney making the point and I agree with him,
''With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere," Romney said.
Basically this is just another case of MSM confusion. They cannot figure out how someone could possibly be opposed to gay marriage and not be a hate filled bigot. So if Romney appointed gay judges, he must be confused or not opposed to gay marriage.
Of course, we conservatives are not as confused as the Boston Globe is. We believe it is sinful but acceptable in a free society for gay people to do the job just as well as anyone else. And if they aren't the ones on the court who will be deciding on gay marriage, what's the problem? There is none, specially if they are tough on crime.
Here's another quote from Romney to make the point:
"Romney, asked if he has engaged in any horse-trading with Democratic politicians, said: ''So far I have not ever given any weight whatsoever to whether I think someone can make it through the Governor's Council. I send them individuals who I feel are highly qualified and have the right judicial temperament related to crime and punishment."
This is why I, as a Christian conservative, trust Romney. First, the attacks by the Boston Globe, who loves liberals, trying to paint Romney as one of them in their attack articles, solidifies my support for Romney. And second because once you get past the headlines you can see that the headline is innacurate.
|
|
Just had to finish this... from the previous post which was too long:
You don't get quotes like this:
"Peter Vickery, one of the Democrats on the Governor's Council, says he believes Romney and Moore would seek far more conservative jurists if a vacancy were to pop up on the Supreme Judicial Court, which delivered the gay marriage decision that Romney has routinely blasted."
Until the end of the article, for obvious reasons.
In a nutshell, that is what makes Hugh think Romney will make just as good of picks as Rudy. Although, I don't trust Rudy like I trust Romney. Rudy has sworn to two seperate women that he would love, honor and obey them for the rest of his life and broken that vow. Romney hasn't. |
|
How MUCH is Romney payin' you dude???
Unconfirmed whispers of a Dobson endorsement of Huckabee and Hewitt throws up all over his blog.
Were your hands shaking when you were typing??
"where would the vast majority of Romney voters go? Not to Huckabee, I think. "
You have NO IDEA what's going to happen.
Limbaugh's been smart enough to admit he doesn't know what's going to happen.
But Hewitt...oh no Romney said so it must be true.
Man you are a ZOMBIE.
You'll "be glad to fight for a Giuliani campaign"...phpppt.
Who would listen to you?
You've insulted, smeared and mocked anyone who's too stupid to see Romney's the man (and should buy your book) You've hung all your credibility on Romney.
And if, IF he loses....oh yeah Hewitt, wasn't he that guy who was always beatin' the drum for Romney, what ever happened to him...who knows, who cares.
Get a life. |
|
|
Hugh................We survived FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton!....If the GOP(Gutted Our Principles)has moved so far to the left and Big Government that they can't produce a true conservative, they will lose! The crops want fail, and the sun will continue to come up, and they will either move back towards conservative principles or become irrelevant on the American political scene? Hillary will treat them like a run over dog in the road for about 4 years, and then they will get a chance to see if they have learned anything!......We just had 8 years of a president that SAID he was a conservative.......I have to say how silly the GOP looks trying to shove pro-abortion candidates down the throat of voters with charlatin preachers helping them! And your singing for a Governor that told Catholic services to place orphans in GAY homes or go out of business! Donations to the GOP have slowed to a crawl. When the last real CONSERVATIVE exits, he needs to turn the light off! Hillary might get 48 months out of the whitehouse, and then we vote again. Liberals/Libertarians/ and Paleoconservatives are not going to let a little group of Neocons BOMB the world into a global war. Where would they get the troops? The border patrol? They are a bit short you know. Hillary will win..........Get over it. |
|
|
It is one of our sadder lessons that absolutists ever aver that their conscience is a thing of the infinite, and to such an infinite ever give their allegiance, meanwhile, those who could benefit from the better are cast as the unwanted refuse of metaphors. |
|
Good article, good analysis. |
|
"The idea that a country tired of an evangelical former Texas governor in the White House who has pushed unpopular immigration policies might be persuaded to be enthusiastic about evangelical former Arkansas governor who is also pro-regularization of illegals is not just far fetched."
Do I see Hugh recommending a religious test? Evangelicals shouldn't vote for another evangelical because that person's faith would be a drag on the campaign? Dangerous territory there... |
|
Romney has had to state over and over again to worried constituants that he is running for President not Pastor. Mike Huckabee is having the opposite effect on evangelical voters. They appear to be voting for a Pastor not a President.
It takes a certain kind of man/woman to lead a nation as diverse as the United States of America. He'll sense and know when to be tough and when to be compassionate. He'll be sure of the times a "yes" is appropriate and when a "no" has to be boldly given. A real leader will never be liked by everyone but he will be respected. I don't think it is necessary that I feel like a chum to the President of the United States. We are hiring him to do a very challenging job. His resume' must match what we are asking him to do. He earns the office prior to being hired. He needs to earn my respect by the way he chooses to live his life. He needs to respect that I have placed my trust in his decision making and he must not take that lightly. Mitt Romney is very focused and will deliver. He has a proven conservative record. There are times when great men pick their battles. Romney picked his battles in Massachutes so that he could win and thus make a difference in a state that he cared about and that essentially was headed in the wrong direction. You can't make a difference if you are never hired for the job. He turned the huge government ship in Massachutes around and got it sailing on a much better course. You get elected on promises and you had better keep those promises....that is integrity. |
|
|
Romney, Huckabee, Guliani; like a broken record back in the old days. Townhall*s straw men with a nation full of angry & confused voters who want to be assured they can somehow find the truth. If you Guliani people read the news then you know the fallout just starting with Kerik*s indictments--why aren*t you, including Hugh Hewitt, on the attack with Clinton*s campaign contributions from foreign sources, some really questionable maybe illegal???? Why attack each other? I guess you*ll never learn. My vote will go for Duncan Hunter, the only RIGHT one. Other than John McCain, Hunter is a veteran(Vietnam).Tell me what*s wrong with Duncan Hunter,will you?? |
|
Where Does Huckabee Fit In?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/where_doe s_huckabee_fit_in.html
William Rusher argues Rudy or Mitt will likely lose to Hillary, anyway. If so, all of the craven triangulating Hugh is asking conservatives to sell their souls for will come to naught, and then we will have lost both our self-respect AND the presidency.
If we must lose, then the better model would be Goldwater '64 --not Dole '96.
But, who says we have to lose? The electorate is ideologically evenly divided (more or less), and while the Republicans have the war albatross, to some extent, the Democrats have it to, because whoever is elected must deal with it.
Huck has something to offer. He's not perfect, and he's not Reagan. But, he's the most Reagan-like. He's real person, not a poli-bot like Mitt (or Hillary) or RINO like Rudy.
Standing next to Cruella DeVille in a debate will just accentuate Huck's affable genuiness all the more. There couldn't be a more ideal contrast to reverse party stereotypes then Huckabee vs. Clinton. Bring it on! |
|
|
If Mr Hewitt likes Guliani, then he*d better get busy on the attack. Rudy has the Kerik situation now, and it*s strange how people can be led astray to fight over which man is best for President instead of seriously fighting the main rival. It*s called divide & conquer but who is leading it? I*ll let you guess. Hillary Clinton has taken campaign contributions from highly questionable sources, youall should know this if you*re following the news. So attack already, haven*t you learned anything from the Democrats in all these years???--Incidentally there are other viable candidates than these clowns. |
|
whether you like it or not.
And yes, if Rudy gets the nomination Ill even vote for him.
In fact, I'll vote for any Republican except your boy, slick Mitt the flip flopping mandatory health care guru.
|
|
|
"Whats wrong with Duncan Hunter?" Umm amp - he'll never come anywhere near being nominated. Great guy - quality Congressman - great on border security but no money and almost no name recognition. The reality guys is no matter what you think of Hugh, he's right - its a Rudy/Mitt race. I prefer Mitt but will back Rudy to the hilt if he wins it. |
|
Huckabee puts his listeners at ease, and reassures them, articulating clear concepts in a natural, easy style (no doubt something well-cultivated as a pastor). He’s not as “mechanically-scripted” as Romney, nor angry or demanding, like a Ron Paul, and his large brown eyes, peering through a humble demeanor, draw a striking contrast to a unconvincing, tired-looking Thompson. One can easily imagine sitting comfortably with Mike over a cup of coffee at the Main Street Cafe.
Most importantly, Huckabee convinces many that he is ONE with the FairTax grassroots movement ( snipr . com/fthuckabeeonirs ). Romney's recent WEAK response to FairTax questioning on “This Week with Geo. Stephanopoulos ( snipurl .com/stephanopoulosdebate )” drew a sharp contrast between Huckabee and all other presidential front-runners who will not embrace it. Huckabee understands that what''s wrong with the income tax can''t be fixed with "a tap of the hammer, nor a twist of the screwdriver." That his opponents cling to the destructive Tax Code, the IRS, preserving political power of granting tax favors at continued cost to - and misery of - American families, invigorates his campaign's raison d'etre. “Main Street” will have to demand ( snipr. com/scrapthecode ) that their legislators deliver the bill to Huckabee, if elected.
|
|
|
|
..is a vote for Rudy, what's a vote for Mitt? I mean, honestly, what does the guy stand for?! Optimism? As if THAT's going to cure seven years of economic and strategic mismanagement. And how is it that Mitt would slingshot out of IA, if he wins, but Huckabee wouldn't?
Also, I think a lot of you guys want to run against Hillary because you think she's the most beatable. You think she would be terrible for the country, but you are willing to risk that because you think she is beatable. I put the country first. I'm a patriot. I don't think like that. That's why I want the Repubs to nominate Huck. He may not get my vote, but at least if he won, I'd know we have a guy in there who is rational (unlike Rudy), principled (unlike Mitt), and capable of a humanity that American conservatism has been sadly lacking. |
|
|
20/20 fore vision is easy if you want.Do the math .Mitt must win the primary or Hillary will win the general. There are alot of wolves in sheeps clothing who are pushing our buttons .Their real point is for us to lose.Please do not let them. " Evangelicals for Mitt " a good site . I wish I had Hugh's talent for writing .Sometimes we need to pray for ourselves though.Please pray and maybe fast too .This is so big a chose to fight over and lose . |
|
You regret voting for Arnold? As opposed to who, the Democrat he beat? Arnold may not be conservative enought for you, but as governor of California he did and is doing ok. I am glad he is there.
Mitt Romney is ok, but to think he would definitely appoint more conservative judges than Rudy Giuliani is absolutely not guaranteed. Rudy has been running that he would appoint judges like Alito and Roberts. I hope Mitt would do the same.
As for brining up Rudy's personal foiables. . . Ronald Reagan got divorced too. But looking at promises in politics, Romney was pro life in Utah, then pro choice in Massachusetts, when challenged on being multiple choice he became emphatically pro choice, then when he decided to run for President became pro life again. Romney has done similar things on gun control, gay rights, immigration, etc.
I actually have nothing against gay judges or gay rights. I assume Mitt actually doesn't either. But now that Mitt is running for president he has to be adamently against gay marriage and even civil unions (which he once supported) because he might upset his Holiness in Colorado Springs and lose his endorsement. While Dobson cannot bring himself to endrse Mitt directly because he loaths his Mormon heresy.
I would like to hear Mitt, for once, act like Fred Thompson did when Dobson plays his games. Why cater to a guy like that? Same goes for Rudy kissing up to Robertson. |
|
|
Although I didn't attend Blogworld for politics, I did hover around the Townhall booth while Hugh's show was being aired and that attracted a lot of political types as did other exhibit booths featuring politically-oriented blog services. I talked to maybe 15 people, granted a small, skewed sample but these people, like me, would never vote for Giuliani and would actually prefer a Hillary win because we could immediately go on the attack once she won where we would be told to shut up if Rudy won but went ahead and continued the Bush on-world agenda. The Godblog people were everywhere, this was a big event for them, and although I didn't actually talk to many of them, I couldn't imagine people who place so much importance on very specific principles could throw it all out the window for fear that Hillary might win. For them, like me, Hillary = Rudy. Hillary wins, the fight goes on. Rudy wins, our own side silences us. |
|
I've had enough swallow hard and vote for a pile of crap(Giuliani) or a lying weasel(Romney) so we can beat Hillary. I will never vote for either of the two I mentioned! Anyone else but these two.
Plus I am sending money to Huckabee.
Oh remember those judges who are retiring(Justice Stevens is 87. Justice Ginberg is 74. Justices Scalia and Kennedy are 71. Justice Beyer is 69. Justice Souter is 68)if my memory serves me right three of the most liberal where apointed by Republicans! But that doesn't matter because Rudy and Mitt whould only appoint conservative judges, who really believes them. Give Mike a chance.
And I didn't care before yesterday. |
|
|
AFTER a Rudy win? I'm not being my usual rotten, despicable smarta** this time with you. Honest. I am not following your thinking as to why our side would want your silence. For what purpose? I don't get it. |
|
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the law. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's not ignore them any more.
http://www.gohunter08.com
|
|
Rudy's Answer to Illegal Aliens
Pretty much the same as Hillary and GWB. Lip service to border security and "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", amnesty. We tried that once in 1986 and Reagan thought it the worst mistake of his terms. We now have 10 times the number of illegal aliens. We will either elect a President who will uphold the laws or one who will change them to accomodate the illegal aliens. If we do the latter, we are voluntarily committing national suicide.
|
|
elephant in the room. Folks, it's The FairTax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
If you defend the income tax (Rudy, Mitt) you're in the same boat as Karl Marx. Ironically, Marx's motive for supporting a progressive income tax in capitalist countries was to destroy capitalism. One can only wonder about the motives of Mitt & Rudy. (BTW, did anyone notice that none of the former commy/currently capitalist chose to adopt an American-style income tax? And that almost all of their economies are now growing faster than ours?)
I'm more persuaded by Milton Friedman's vision for America, however -- and by the 75 American economists who wrote a letter to Pres. Bush in support of the FairTax. Including Nobel Lauret Vernon Smith. Even Alan Greenspan likes the FairTax. How many economists think America's current income tax system (with or without Rudy's/Mitt's tinkering) is the best way to grow the American economy? Chime in any time ....
Fiscal conservatives, lovers of freedom, and defenders of liberty support the FairTax and we are grateful to the only candidate who is bold enough to stand with us ... Mike Huckabee.
|
|
|
Hugh - can you say Harriet Miers? You were willing to throw in the towel on that nomination while the rest of us just said "no". Your article re Huckabee seems to be the same. I am not particularly a Huckabee fan but I also recall that no one really thought that a previous "hick" from Hope, Arkansas could possibly win the White House, so why worry? No matter who wins the GOP nomination, we will have a fight on our hands - the Clintons will cheat in every state and we will need to be very vigilent at ALL ballot boxes. Bottom line, Hugh: You sound like an elitist in that blog. Most of us evangelicals will give a lot of thoughtful consideration to our primary vote. We ar not stupid. |
|
Actually I admired Mother Teresa and her ministry very much, I just pointed out to you Christopher Hitchens's critique of her (he was actually her Devil's Advocate for her canonization), which was she raised millions for the poor of Calcutta and most of those millions never went to the poor of Calcutta. When the Red Cross did that after 9/11, Bill O'Reilly went nuts. Why is it any different when the Catholic Church does it? Now granted, Christopher Hitchens is a gadfly and overtly hostile to all religion. Bill O'Reilly is a shameless populist and only cares about his own ratings. And I am not hostile to the Church, I just note that some of its decisions don't make much sense and need to be criticized. Then again, maybe they needed the money to pay settlements on sexual abuse cases and to get Cardinal Law out of Boston before he got indited for obstruction of justice, but I digress. . .
I do think Dobson is a creep. I am sorry, but a guy who thinks the cure to homosexuality is for dads to take showers with their sons is just plain goofy. Dobson makes a point of sticking himself into Republican politics and demanding more and more, using his followers as a wedge. No surprise he was in with Abramoff. I do not care for it and I am sick of politicians pandering to it. If Dobson can pronounce Thompson not a Christian and can't even bear to be upfront and say I support a Mormon for president, why can't we call him a creep?
And benner, you and Andrew Sullivan have a lot in common. You both hate Rudy Giuliani. Sullivan said if the choice was Mitt over Rudy, he would take Mitt in a second. |
|
Good job Hugh! Yours is an excellent analysis of the situation we are facing.
By the way, for the life of me I cannot understand why any pubbies are even considering a candidate from Hope Arkansas, who has been a Governor of AR. That is about as surreal as the fact that Hillary is even being considered as a presidential candidate with all of the perveted Clinton baggage both of the Clinton's carry!
|
|
or Cruz Bustamonte or Phil Angelides. Because if it wasn't for Arnold, they would be governor. Would that make you happy? I do not like all his policies, but he is demonstrably better than the Democrat alternatives.
And Pasadena Phil, say it ain't so. You and Virginia Patriot would vote for Hillary over Rudy, because he is weak on immigration? I have no problem with picking who you think is the best candidate, but Hillary vs. Rudy or Hillary vs. Mitt, or Hillary vs. Fred, or Hillary vs. Mike, or Hillary vs. John is really an easy choice. Hillary would be demonstrably worse on all issues. With Dems controlling House and Senate wait till you see what Hillary and Co come up with. |
|
The truest thing Hugh has ever said about this campaign:
"Most of these states [Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, and Super Tuesday states] will have absentee ballots available even before New Hampshire votes, and in some of them the early voting numbers are huge."
This is the fundamental point of the primary process: the state races are not sequential, they are concurrent, even if a few small states' offcial Election "Day"s occur a few weeks before others'. And if you're not already doing very well in Florida and the Super Tuesday states well BEFORE Iowa & NH vote, no amount of "Big Mo" you pick up there can do you much good, because the larger states will already be in the middle of voting by mail.
True, Hugh still can't bring himself to admit the inescapable conclusion. But by admitting the key fact that leads to that conclusion, he puts himself on the road toward sanity. This is a very positive step for Hugh, who has been mired in denial for too long now. Finally, we see signs of him moving toward bargaining.
I think even Hugh must sense the desperation in hoping that Romney's money can somehow engineer late saves in FL, CA, NY, etc. But unless that money can buy a time machine, I don't see it saving the day. Not all the money in the world can call back the tens - or hundreds - of thousands of Rudy and Fred votes that will be postmarked and on their way to the various election supervisors by the time the NH result is "officially" announced and therefore have its supposed tsunami effect on obedient copycat voters in FL, etc. |
|
No Rudy, No McCain
Romney, Thompson and Huckabee are saying the right things now, but haven't always. Hunter and Tancredo have been working on this for years on our behalf. Longer than most of you have been alarmed about it, they have been trying to sound the alarm. Choose carefully in the primaries, your future depends on it. |
|
He ran a terrible campaign and had zero chance.
Recruit Pasadena Phil to run in California and you might have had a chance, but you guys have to drop your Losertarian tendancies. There is always a better and a worse when you have two choices. And one party in charge of executive and legislature always causes more mischief than splitting it. I am not going to defend crazy things Californians allow, but it would have been worse without Arnold.
It is very important that we get a GOP in the WH. I am frankly happy with all the GOP candidates compared to the alternatives on the other side. I don't think Huckabee can get the job done, but I am getting convinced that Rudy, Mitt and Fred could. Hillary is unethical and dangerous. Obama is a nice guy (he is the least offensive of the three) but terminally naive and he has bad policy ideas. Edwards is an opportunist huckster and would be a disaster on foriegn policy. |
|
1. Bias. Hugh is a media figure, and he will look like a Huge fool after saying all year "Huckabee can't win, you're wasting your time even talking about him, blah blah blah" if Huck pulls it off (as most insiders say is quite plausible), plain and simple. As a trial attorney, I urge everyone to consider the bias of the witness in providing analysis.
2. Hugh makes a electability/plausibility argument for dropping Huck NOW, even if he is better on the issues, bolding "Huckabee can't possibly win the nomination..." as the foundation for his argument. Okay, lets briefly compare notes on Huck and Romney. Huck has spent not much more that a million, was ignored by the conservative and MSM, and yet is about TIED nationally in polls with Mitt. Huck has moved up exponentially in fundrasising in the last month and in polling, seen in IA (he's clear 2nd now and moving up) and NH and nationally, while Romney has gone down nationally AFTER SPENDING TENS OF MILLIONS AND TEN TIMES MORE MEDIA ATTN (most of that his own). Furthermore, Huck has clearly demonstrated cross-over appeal by attracting much favorable MSM favorable articles about his likability etc. (show me ONE such one for Mitt). In latest Rasmussen poll, Romney trails Hillary by 6 pts, Huckabee trails Hillary by only 3 pts. Finally, if money is so important, how do you explain the Huck phenomenon of the last month and his rise to this point equal nationally to Romney with practically no money?
Hugh, you need to start cutting your losses now by slowly easing out of your "Mitt or Bust" "Huck can't POSSIBLY win" arguments while there's still time. Even Sean Hannity finally made that move yesterday on his radio show after a year of pushing Romney and Guiliani hard, talking about Huck as now surging into top tier and saying he is a candidate "to watch". The ignore-Huck era is over.
|
|
That's kind of a glaring omission isn't it, Hugh? especially since you're trying to sell the dubious notion that Huckabee is "stealing" Mitt votes when in reality every poll seems to show that Huckabee and Fred are each other's closest competition for the same votes. And it's Fred who's Rudy's closest GOP challenger, not McCain or Mitt.
"Of about 25 at dinner, at least five raised their hands and spoke in the most emphatic terms as to why they would never vote for [Rudy]."
Well, that sounds about as scientific as most of the pro-Mitt or anti-Rudy polls you post, so I won't quibble with the result. And more conventional polls have shown the same thing: that there's a significant minority of conservatives who say they won't ever vote for Rudy.
But why don't you mention that there's a LARGER bloc of conservative voters who say they would never vote for Mitt? If this represents a minor stumbling block for Rudy, then surely it represents a major barrier for Mitt. |
|
Thank you for your service to the poor and needy.
And BTW--I admire your commitment on various issues. |
|
|
Rest assured, I would never vote for Hillary. I will not vote for ANY candidate who supports amnesty. If, by election day, we have a GOP nominee who has pledged no amnesty, I will vote for him. If the GOP nominates an amnesty supporter, I will write in Joe Oliva. |
|
|
|
Thanks. Just no naked showers with James Dobson, because I am not into that.
And Virginia Patriot--apparently the message is getting to Rudy. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/politics/22giuliani.h tml Does that make Rudy a flip flopper? Yeah it does, just like Mitt Romney flipped on this issue. But I guess what matters if he is serious about it.
While I am for legal immigration (and lots of it--especially science and engineering degree holders), I agree we need to get serious on illegal immigration. Three things will make all the difference: better border security (fence, guards, etc.), better port security (a method of tracking those who come into this country), and punishing employers who hire illegals with stiff civil penalties. Enforcements of employers is the most critical element of all of this. And, it is the part that Republicans of all stripes seem to have a problem with enforcing such rules.
If Mitt and Rudy make a pledge to really stop illegal immigration and punish employers who hire illegals--that might make a difference. |
|
|
I had hoped that Huckabee could win in Iowa, do well in NH and possibly eke out a win in SC - until I heard that while weekly church attendance is ~ 47% in Iowa, it's about 7% in NH. So a Huckabee win in Iowa would probably not help at all in secularist New Hampshire. Not to mention that Michigan (where George Romney was governor) is before South Carolina anyway. Go Romney, I guess. Down with Rudy. |
|
|
Just to clarify...Are you against amnesty for illegals or in favor of it? |
|
You write to Joe: For a guy not hostile to the Church you sure say a lot of nasty things about it.
I realize that you and Joe have now had a group hug (thankfully not Dobson-style), and the exchange above between you was very interesting. I'd like to know this: why is it Christians--if that's what we're going to call you--are allowed to delivered withering blasts at the human condition and the moral depravity of others, but expressing hostility towards Christian double-dealing is considered "nasty" or somehow out-of-bounds. Why is it that your folks are allowed to issue these grandiose and snarling critiques on everyone else, but when someone speaks up against Christianist stupidity, it's regarded as "an attack on faith."
Your faith does not--or at least should not--shield your views. As I said elsewhere, faith may be a starting place, but it is not a rationale. No one is obliged to back off simply because you believe, to the bottom of your soul, in some piece of Christian doctrine. Those beliefs neither sanction your viewpoint nor confer respectability to it. And they certainly do not immunize them from criticism.
There is a historic record of right-wing Christians speaking sharply and aggressively against evils, perceived and otherwise, in the American body politic. That's fine. Long live free speech. But to hell with those clowns who can dish it out, all the while taking extreme umbrage when they get a taste of their own medicine.
|
|
|
Mitt winning in NH does not amount to much, since he's from neighboring MA. Huck wins in IA and finishes respectably in NH (strong third), we'll have to see what SC and the others say. Besides, MI has very little upside for Mitt. If he can't win big in Dad's old state, then he's hurting. |
|
He was a gadfly but interesting. I really liked the Executioner's Song. It is a great novel.
But here is Norman and Rip Torn in a fight that apparently was staged and got out of hand. Just don't hit me in the head with a hammer.
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2815238 |
|
|
The GOP would be telling conservatives to shut up just as they have been using the language of the liberals to drive us out of the party. Once "the only candidate who can beat Hillary" wins, he will move ahead with his liberal agenda (the same as Hillary's) with an imagined "mandate". Were Hillary elected, everyone on the Republican side would remain engaged in fighting that agenda. Were we to fight the same agenda with Rudy as prez, YOU GUYS would be further empowered by victory to continue denying what Rudy is about and he would use that opening to strike fast (just Bush did with his BIG BIG government programs)and get it done. Hillary couldn't get it done. A Rudy "victory" spells the end of the Republican "party". Liberals would then control the entire United Establishment Party. Of course, combined registrations for both parties will probably sink to below 50% which is not far away already. |
|
|
It is clear to me and most serious analysts that the nomination is between Romney and Giuliani. |
|
|
Thanks for the link. He's saying what he thinks he needs to, to win the nomination. But he has no intention of actually enforcing the laws. Basically the same thing Bush has been saying. Won't get fooled again, as someone once said. |
|
How's your guy McCain doing? Are you now pushing for Sarah Palin? The reason McClintock can't get any traction in CA is that we don't have a Republican party. What poses as the GOP here often endorses Democratic candidates over their own candidates (LA Mayor Jim Hahn, who lost to Tony V anyways,over Walter Moore e.g.) or they won't raise a finger to help GOP candidates like Duncan Hunter. This is particularly idiotic because the percentage of CA voters registered as Republicans is higher than the national average. Have you ever heard of the expression "The Stupid Party"? THAT is what BrianR and I are fighting in CA.
You are a "former" spokesman for a political candidate and was dead sure not so long ago that McCain was a shoo-in and that us racist anti-amnesty types were going to lose and so on. Now you have this passionate hatred of Romney. Things just never seem to work out the way you predict for you do they? Acting on your convictions is better than surrendering to expediency. If Giuliani wins the nomination, you are not going to like February to November next year. |
|
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he has fought with the party and seriously messed up with immigration, so he will not get the nomination and I guess you can just hope now he does not run as a third party candidate.
Why don't you have a Republican party in California? You used to have one. Too many illegals taking your birthright vote?
Arnold triangulated because when he ran conservative as Governor he became unpopular. Some fights you fight (regardless of being elected or not) and some you do not. What makes you think McClintock would have won and if he did win that he would have accomplished more?
I do not have a passionate hatred of Romney. Romney may be the best candidate in the field right now to go against the Democrat candidate (which I acknowledge is Rudy, Fred, and Mitt). In head to heads, Mitt is weakest of the three but he does not have any of Rudy's wiff of scandal and he is more energeic than Fred. What I can't believe is how convinced you are Rudy is so flawed on policy, but ignore Romney's left of Ted Kennedy positions in Massachusetts (and how they suddenly switched when he decided to run for President). His supporters pretend it is not an issue, but I worry he cannot beat Hillary because he will be portrayed as a flip flopper. |
|
It's over for him. He does not have the money or organization to do anything beyond Iowa. No time to fundraise if he does do well in Iowa.
He's had a bump from the media the past couple weeks - but it won't hold because he's not conservative. He thinks we "broke something" in Iraq. Is THAT the way a leader for the WOT should speak? Nope. He is pro-big governement, pro-amnesty, and a wimp on taxes. The fair tax is cover for him.
There's a reason why he didn't get traction earlier - he's not conservative. Not to mention his poorly run campaign. |
|
|
He takes votes away from Mitt. And Hugh cannot have any of that. |
|
The Romney flip-flop thing has run it's course. Apparently the early state voters don't care about it where Romney leads. Fred, Rudy and even McCain all have significant flips they don't get called on.
But the fact is, Hillary has about a million of them. It won't be an issue she can use. |
|
|
Why does anyone still support Huck? I understand that Fred, Huck and McCain need to be taken out now. Hugh is right that a vote for any of them is a vote for Rudy. |
|
|
|
|
Arnold didn't "triangulate", he surrendered. He declared a new world of "post-partisanship". Rudy has been campaigning in CA on the message that he ran NY the same way Arnold is running CA. Everytime he is reported as speaking to a group of "conservative" Republicans, it is merely a Bill Simon organized assembly that the MSM obediently reports as being conservative. There IS no GOP in CA and if the national party follows that model, they will disappear. I would welcome a McCain/Lieberman ticket. If the choice were Rudy vs. Hillary and Ron Paul runs independent (which I expect), he would get my vote. I would love to see stampede to water down the power of whoever wins. When the "major" parties are shedding membership to the point where independents are the majority of voters, it is time to have a national discussion about exactly how the electoral college works and having a brokered election where an independent narrowly wins the popular vote but gets denied by the electoral college sending it to Congress would accomplish that. We need some creative destruction here. You are defending the indefensible and will lose. |
|
|
I agree about the flip-flop thing and Romney. All those tapes from his Senate run will be made into ads when the time is right. My liberal wife can't wait for him to get the "Kerry treatment" if he's the nominee. Of the front runners, Fred is the only one I consider viable. I voted for McCain in 2000 and still think we'd have been better off with him than W. We are at a critical point and cannot elect anyone who will not secure the border and enforce the laws or we will lose our country. If it comes down to Hillary vs Rudy, it does not matter at all to me, because the country I grew up in will be gone. |
|
|
It is very important for everyone to vote their conscience next year and let the chips fall where they may. If you like Ron Paul, vote for him. If you like Huckabee, same thing. Put it on record. It's your only chance to voice your preference. A vote for your preferred candidate is not a vote for the devil. It's truth documented. Besides, ANY decent conservative Republican candidate will beat Hillary and it is up to us to force the issue while we can. If the GOP wants their own Hillary as their leader, Hillary might as well win. We can deal with that. We didn't elect Hitler to beat Germany in WWII. We are heading into an election where both parties are using different languages to funnel us into the same destination. It is important to vote otherwise and see where that takes us. |
|
and lean liberal on the social stuff. Not Liberal mind you, but libertarian. . . .
I guess I should support Mitt Romney. Because when he wins the Presidency he will naturally shift center on most issues, he is a strong fiscal conservative (which is something this country really needs), and hopefully he will fight the war on terror. I believe Dean when he describes Mitt as a decent human being (who does his own shopping). He is obviously a good husband and dad.
I hope you guys are right that he can beat Hillary. |
|
|
Buck up. Your country will not be gone. We need to insist on real employment penalties for those who hire illegals. It will be good for more people to do their own landscaping anyway (get out in the sun, enjoy your garden, get some exercise) and if people cannot do it we should unplug the various games and get our kids to earn a few bucks doing it. |
|
This was posted yesterday on the Linda Chavez piece, this is my hometown, the Reconquista has reached 2000 miles from the border.
Sawmiller writes: Friday, November, 09, 2007 11:11 AM
Personal Experience on Immigration.
Dear Linda,
I live in Richmond which is its own county. When I moved here in 2002, I discovered Pony Pasture, a really nice park on the James River. My family and I would visit this part of the river often, along with many other folk, including single females from the University of Richmond.
The last time I visited the park was in 2005. To park, I had to overpower the illegal immigrants who were permitting parking by other illegal immigrants only. Yes, I am self-confident and assertive. My family and I played in the river as usual. We were the only non-Latino folk among thousands of people. Later, I learned that all non-Latinos go downtown and use Brown's Island for access to the James River.
Linda, baby, how did this happen? Am I permitted to be upset about this situation? Or is it politically incorrect to criticize a group of people who have formed a mafia to dominate the most beautiful and enjoyable natural resource in Richmond? Is it permissible for me to be concerned about the clannishness of these newly arrived Latinos and their mafia-style tactics in the parking lot? Is it permissible for me to be concerned that there is no law enforcement at Pony Pasture because local police cannot deal with illegals as they deal with everyone else?
Linda, as a conservative, why are you so pleased to see the disruption of social arrangements that have existed for centuries, such as the matter of Pony Pasture that I described above. It seems to me that you are interested in the welfare of newly arrived illegals rather than the welfare of the overall society. I believe that you are not a conservative.
|
|
|
His positions in MA were based on the fact that he could not hope to overturn laws that were vastly popular in MA and promised not to do so. He governed as a conservative governor within that promise. To equate Romney to Kerry is a cheap shot. Kerry is a stupid, selfish and self-centered opportunist. Romney is the real deal. He has proven that it IS possible to be an effective conservative in MA within what a populist democracy allows. It is unfathomable to me how anyone can make the mental trek from finding Rudy acceptable but rejecting Romney so easily on the phony flip-flop label. |
|
I agree with your latest comments. I am not supporting the indefensible. I saw Rudy in action as mayor and he did a good job.
And Virginia Patriot, we have had shifts in immigration since this country started. I don't doubt that story, but I also think the way to deal with that is ending illegal immigration and making legal immigration geared to an assimilation goal (which was the traditional path).
I would not encourage and would actively discourage Muslim immigration (with some exceptions for those who assist us in Iraq and Afghanistan). |
|
|
Just to be clear, I do not think Romney is equivalent to Kerry. I think we are seeing the authentic Mitt now, however, those tapes are out there and they will be used. He said things when he was running for Senate that I'm sure he regrets, but he said them. |
|
Kerry was a contemptable power hungry liar. Mitt clearly is not that.
Mitt has a tendency to say what he thinks you want to hear rather than speak from the heart. To just dismiss Mitt's passionate defense of being pro choice (i.e., his mother being pro choice, pro choice since 1970, his relative who died in an illegal abortion, etc.) as just some promise to Massachusetts voters is you not facing reality.
I can do the same on gun control, immigration, gay rights, etc. Trust me, the Democratic attack dogs definitely will do it. But they will do brutal attacks on Giuliani and Fred too if they are the nominees. And frankly I would rather be called a flip flopper than be attacked for Kerik and a pedeophile priest as advisors.
But I liked it a lot when Mitt got passionate and defended his position on abortion and the LDS Church with that conservative talk radio guy off the record. I wish we could see more of that Mitt because I would be an enthusiastic supporter of him if he did that. http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/video-mitt-romne y-defends-his-mormon-faith-during-a-commercial-break-on-a-r adio-show/ |
|
|
|
ok - let's just assume the recent Wash Po / ABC and other polls are credible.
Have any of you looked at MR's fav/unfav ratio - it is a nightmare for him.
Have any of you looked at people who will NEVER vote for MR - another disaster.
Have any of you looked at the 1st and 2nd choice combined - MR is 5th in GOP.
People have instincts about candidates - the perception of MR (and it may be unfair) is that he is very plastic.
Being able to pivot 180 degrees on so many issues that are popular with an element of the GOP with obvious timing to the election defies common sense.
Was MR a competent business person? Yes
Did he get elected in Mass by saying anything he had to say on key issues? Yes
Is he now saying anything he has to say today to get elected? Yes
Could he outlie Hillary to get elected? No |
|
|
I think Romney will survive the Dem attacks on flip-flopping. Hillary has already dug a deep hole for herself and the myth that Rudy is counting on, that she is an unstoppable machine that only he, who chickened out in the Senate race against her, is unravelling. She is not Bill Clinton and does not have the skill, persona or anything else to carry out whatever advice he is giving her. The Dems are in deep trouble. That is the only way a Giuliani can win. Of course, running a conservative Republican would be result in a landslide. The problem is the RNC and the Bush/Giuliani Texas crowd. They can be defeated after the primaries by a very strong conservative like Hunter who hits the hustings with the right message and builds coattails (or "reverse" coattails?) in the congressional races which will fought on a conservative message. Endorsements from Congressional candidates providing a Hunter a daily microphone for ten months could be a new way to make the "rigged primaries" ploy backfire for both parties. Maybe next time, they will listen to their base voters. |
|
A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
A vote for ANY candidate other than Rudy is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Virginia Patriot- your obsession with the amnesty issue is truly amazing to me. That you believe this should be the deciding issue is pathetic. You seem to believe that all or most of this countries problems have been caused by a group of destitute people whose main crime was to risk their lives to come here and who contribute far more to our society and wealth than they take out.
If TRUE Virginia Patriots like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry could read what you write, they would hang their heads in shame and disgust... |
|
I am a Values Voter a Christian; I vote that Conservative and Liberal Politician and the government stay far away for my values based on Jesus Christ. The values I believe in are spread not by political campaigns but by the Grace and Power of Jesus Christ. This is why the religious Right and Left have failed so miserably.
With that said what I look for who is follows my political values of limited Government and capitalism for a government to practice Individualism, and Capitalism will allow me freedom to practice my Christian Values. The answer is none. Both Conservative and Liberals are Statist at heart.
Finally I al left who is a leader I am left with Guiliani. He ahs demonstrated leadership on 9/11 and then some.
|
|
I am a Values Voter a Christian; I vote that Conservative and Liberal Politician and the government stay far away for my values based on Jesus Christ. The values I believe in are spread not by political campaigns but by the Grace and Power of Jesus Christ. This is why the religious Right and Left have failed so miserably.
With that said what I look for who is follows my political values of limited Government and capitalism for a government to practice Individualism, and Capitalism will allow me freedom to practice my Christian Values. The answer is none. Both Conservative and Liberals are Statist at heart.
Finally I al left who is a leader I am left with Guiliani. He ahs demonstrated leadership on 9/11 and then some.
|
|
Just read your diatribe regarding the James river. DO you believe that writing such a statement paints you in a positive light? Think again.
The fact that you fail to distinguish between Latinos and Illegals (did you ask to see their green cards?) is telling. The fact that it seems to upset you that a group of Latinos come to the James River in large groups is also telling. The fact that you are obviously uncomfortable among Latino people and refer to them as a "mafia" is also telling.
It is obvious to me, and I hope to others, that your feelings on this issue are not so much law and order but personal predjudice. |
|
|
|
|
I was waiting for the first faux-evangelist to show up. Your comment outed you because people with religious convictions don't compromise with the devil. I just spent a couple of days among an awful lot of Christian conservatives and I assure you that you are not one of them.It is not pigeon-holing to expect a cow to moo. That's what cows do. Voting your conscience and standing on principle is what Christian conservatives do. That is why they are as organized as they are. They didn't even vote until Reagan gave them an opening but are now looking for a reason to vote. Your "lesser of two evils" argument is heresy to these people. St Peter doesn't ask you "Did you do the lesser of two evils?" before granting you entry past the pearly gates. He asks "Did you do good?". Now who are you really? |
|
|
remember most of all that a vote for Guiliani is a vote for secular progressivism and the destruction of traditional American values. Wake up this Rudy is nothing but a 9-11 profiteer that has used this event to masquerade as a true republican rather than the New York liberal he truly is. |
|
|
I did not write that account of the park, someone else did. The fact is, until 5-6 years ago, there were few hispanics here, now there are in excess of 350,000 in VA. 80-90% of whom ARE illegal aliens. We had no Spanish language radio stations, now there are 3 just in Richmond. You could go to Walmart and not be the only person speaking English. You may be happy to have foreign nationals ignoring our borders and all of our laws, not just immigration laws, but I am not. |
|
"If a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Rudy, what's a vote for Mitt? I mean, honestly, what does the guy stand for?! Optimism? As if THAT's going to cure seven years of economic and strategic mismanagement." - Patriotic Liberal
If that's your #1 concern (which I doubt, given your "liberal" self-designation), Romney is far more qualified in economic and strategic management than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. Period. |
|
|
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry believed in fighting for this country, why don't you? You seem willing to surrender to the Reconquista. Originally it was just the southwest, but now seems to be the entire country. Illegal aliens do not contribute more than they take out and that you believe that propaganda says much about you. |
|
NOT! MikeS thinks so. But he forgets, Romney is ahead or moving ahead on the states where he is campaigning. Where he is known to the voters he gathers support. He has the organization and money to introduce himself to the many states who as yet have not heard of him.
You cannot use recent polls showing Hillary winning against Romney to indicate anything yet. Nearly half of the voters still don't know who he is. He has no name recognition in many states. The polls so far have been pitting a well-known against an unknown. Of course the well-known will poll higher.
But his excellent campaign organization and fundraising is beginning to change all that. Winning the early state primaries will surely bring focus on him. Voters will get to know him and see what a strong leader he is. He will defeat Hillary in the general election.
He was able to defeat a democrat in a blue state. Nothing indicates that he cannot do that again. He can and will. Once voters get to know him they appreciate all he has to offer, his experience, his values, his vision for America. Now pit all that against Hillary's experience and she is in real trouble. |
|
Any vote in any primary for Rudy is a vote for the Party of Death and defeat for America and the Republican party next November. Any vote for Romney is just a vote for defeat next November.
GO FRED!!!
THOMPSON/SANTORUM 08 |
|
|
Rudy will not get my support and no amount of scare mongering is going to change that. I would NEVER vote for that man to lead my party!!! |
|
|
Are you a Christian, and if so, do you not know, that doing good or doing bad have nothing at all to do with salvation. Have you ever studied Romans ch.6,7,and 8? What does Romans 7:18,19,20 mean to you? Are you a Godblogger? You seem to be completely in the dark about something so fundamental to a believer, that being the grace of God. I will freely say that maybe i misunderstand what you are saying, but if my understanding is correct, I disagree with most of what you've said. I'm as committed a believer as you will find. Not far behind is my love for my family. That said, their safety is the most important factor in determining who i vote for. I would have no trouble at all in voting for Mr. Guiliani. To me, he is the most committed to their safety. Don't try to tell me that precludes Scat cat and myself from heaven. I'm someone who studies the word. I would suggest you do the same before you call someone a faux-evangelist. |
|
A vote for Fred is a vote for Rudy - For the love of Peter, why don't you get that?
Fred is Dead - and he killed himself. |
|
If doing good has nothing to do with salvation - then why is faith without works dead? Or what are the commandments all about? Just askin.
This election needs to be about more than safety from attackers. It needs to be about upholding the life issue in the GOP platform. Rudy will kill that, no matter how may people say otherwise.
Get a clue, folks. Rudy IS NOT the only one running who will fight the WOT.
|
|
"Are you a Christian, and if so, do you not know, that doing good or doing bad have nothing at all to do with salvation." - cottoneyed
Oh boy, here we go - Theology War! |
|
I understand and sympathize with people who will not vote for Rudy under any circumstances. I am a bit more pragmatic and have said all along that I'll vote for him in the general if I have to. A lot is at stake.
But let's not kid ourselves. Rudy as the nominee IS going to do major damage to the GOP. I don't buy the polls showing he's the only one who can beat Hillary - they are baloney! It is more likely that it is just the opposite. We need a person who speaks our values - and that person CAN beat Hillary. I agree with Rush that this country is still basically conservative. |
|
|
Read Romans Ch.6,7,8. "works" in James refers to what a believer does after he has accepted Christ as savior. If works determines salvation, then why was Christ crucified? Pasadena Phil implied that a vote for Guiliani would preclude one from "the pearly gates". He invoked theology,not I. If he's a Godblogger, he needs to stop blogging and open his Bible. It's the black book with 66 chapters, been around for centuries, and is a best seller. For the record, i believe that Duncan Hunter is the best candidate, but if Guiliani's the guy, he's got my vote. |
|
Thank you cottoneyed for resolving 2,000 years of serious theological Christian debate (grace v. works) with your brief scriptural interpretation. If only every Christian saw things exactly as you do...
BTW, I didn't see how Pasadena Phil implied the equivalence of voting for Rudy with the lost eternal salvation of the soul, but obviously you are much better at reading between the lines than I am. :|
Since you are so doctrinally adept, perhaps you can answer *my* lifelong burning question: did Adam have a bellybutton? And if not/if so, what exactly does it have to do with the U.S. presidential election?
Sorry for the snark, but this is hardly the place to preach your interpretation of Christian dogma.
P.S. I've read Romans 6, 7 & 8, thanks. |
|
|
Hunter is the best candidate! If you missed the hour long interview on Glenn Beck Friday night on CNN Headline News, look for a rerun. Tremendous interview, straight answers, no weaseling, common sense conservatism. He is the President we need at this critical time in American history. |
|
Rasmussen released a survey last week which was covered by Pat Ruffini and Powerline that concluded it doesn't matter who runs against Hillary, she always gets 48% of the vote against any GOP opponent. In fact, all GOP candidates matched up virtually the same against her. Ron Paul scored almost the same as Rudy. Like Ruffini said, you could run a stuffed animal against her and the results would be the same. All that says is that the GOP is merely "Brand X" to Hillary. This race is still WIDE OPEN.
And you faux-evangelical bible thumpers who buy into partial pregnancies and finding salvation as bystanders to evil, there is no response to you guys. You are judged by the decisions you make in life. There is a very well-known saying about great evil occurring unnecessarily just because good men stand idly by and do nothing. Whatever bible you are reading, I question your reading skills. Either that or you must have gotten your religion from the Church of the Illiterate. The lesser of two evils is sometimes applicable in extreme situations. Electing presidents should not fall under that category.I'm sure there are anti-hallucinatory drugs that treat that fear of Hillary. Here is something even scarier: Hillary and Rudy are the same person. What does the bible say about that? |
|
|
i would actively campaign for. It's too bad we live in such a media driven cesspool. Where they determine,to a great extent, who survives and who doesn't. It will take a miracle for him to get the nomination. But i do know that God"puts up who he will and puts down who he will". I fail to see how a Mrs. Bill Clinton presidency is anything other than a catastrophe for this nation. Her ascendancy must never happen. |
|
up to a point. It's true that it's close to a 50/50 split Hillary vs. whomever the GOP produces. But as you should know from 2000, the popular vote really doesn't matter. This election will be won or lost in the swing states, meaning Ohio and Florida. While you could come up with a formula whereby the Dems win even by losing these two states (though unlikely) it is IMPOSSIBLE that the GOP wins without one or both of these states. So again, rather than studying national polls, you need to study the polls in those two states, and what do you find? that Hillary SOUNDLY beats everyone but Rudy. This ain't gonna change between now and next November! That is why Rudy is the only hope for the GOP!
However, if we are foolish enough to select Romney,I predict by June, even before the conventions, everyone going to know he has NO chance of victory. Then will come the hand-wringing about who we SHOULD have chosen... |
|
|
So called "value voters" are important to the GOP but they don't own the GOP. I'm an independent who's voted for the GOP in the past because I don't believe in big government bureacracy. But I am also pro-gay marraige, pro a woman's right to have an abortion, pro federal spending for stem cll research, and pro-amnesty. There are MANY indepedents like me, and if you "value voters" chase us away, the Conservative movement in this country will become as irrelevant as the Southern rights movement became by the 1960's. Be warned. We're not going to put up with yur backwards intolerance any longer. |
|
I posted comments a couple of days ago pointing out that possibly Giuliani's best strategy in Iowa would be to support a Huckabee victory to weaken Romney. Perhaps Giuliani thought of this even earlier and this explains Huckabee's poll numbers in Iowa.
It is a long shot strategy - but it is all Giuliani can do to exercise damage control on Romney's campaign in Iowa.
The true question is this: Is Huckabee in on it? (Huck is really running for VP, and perhaps he & Rudy will be running mates if this works.) |
|
whats wrong with mitt and duncan on a bumper sticker? so many ignorant things said in behalf of mike from arkansas! he is not a conservative !
hugh has it right...romney all the way..and he'll mop up totally lying hillary..! she has the most soiled history and background of any person running for the white house!her lost legal records, blaming america for 9/11 and got booed by the firemen and policemen of new york, ran a security post and dragged a policeman and hurt him
and never apologized for it! approved of the pardon of the murdering puerto rican bombers,saying "dont stand behind your man..if he does that wrong" yeah sure! folks she is totally corrupt and very beatable! last but not least,,
mitt romney is by far the most successful batting 1.000 avg. success at olympics, business, governor.give him a chance you will not be sorry!
he has integrity..despite of all the bull said about him! faithfully married for 38 years...not bad for a "flip-flopper"! gene |
|
|
I don't know how Mitt is qualified. Yeah he made investments. Yeah he was a consultant. Yeah he read Napolean Hill. Just because you know how to read a financial statement does not qualify you to be President of the United States. He was just one of those PE (private equity) guys who bought companies and squeezed them dry. That makes him Presidential material? Presidents are not PE CEOs. They do not come in and say "do this, do that." They have to lead. And the last thing this country needs is another frigging radical Republican trying to reshape our country root-and-branch. We need a President who has a history of bringing people together (it may be that the Republican base is impossible to bring into the fold, given their authoritarian streak), not a guy like Mitt, who has a history of throwing people out of work. |
|
|
It's pretty hilarious how all of you who go on about what a "pretty boy" John Edwards is are able to support Mitt Romney. Have you ever taken a look at that guy? He makes Edwards look positively rugged! So very very funny... Why don't you go and find out how much Mitt pays for a haircut, values voters? |
|
mitt romney is very smart, good looking, great track record...and as of lately starting to show a
sense of humor (debate: romney referring to law and order..and thompson..got a pretty good laugh from even thompson) all this referring to his looks(good) and how well he dresses,etc. iam beginning to think..some of these guys who rave and rant about these silly items are just plain
male JEALOUSY! since he's very financially conservative...probably gets a haircut for a normal price..not $400.00 dollars !!! if he's elected he'll clean out washington like nothing you have ever seen !! romney in...roaches out!
and thats all i have been hearing for most of my life by people of both parties..people on the street..we have to clean out washington! well..MR. CLEAN is headed that way.even tho' he has a lot more hair than the commercial MR. CLEAN
romney will do the job! i heard the same charges about reagan at the beginning of his political career....job losses,etc. well he won the unions vote..and was a very popular president..and so will romney if given the chance! elvis |
|
|
to show mankind that he was sinful and that he had no chance to ever keep them. Therefore, mankind needed a savior. The Ten Commandments are only the the beginning of the law. Leviticus, Numbers, And Deuteronomy outline close to 10000 does and don'ts. Breaking even one and death was the only remedy. All of these were given to man to show him the futility of keeping the Law and his absolute need of a savior. Christ died in our place, our sin applied to him. He rose from the grave and his righteousness applied to us. We traded our sin for his righteousness. This covenant was between the Father and the Son and cannot be broken by man because he is not part of the covenant. Man's only part is to believe. |
|
|
religion doesn't come from the church of the illiterate. I worship a person not a religion. |
|
is right on track...romney is the most qualified one of both bunches! i read all these ultra conservatives..that come accross like they cant study and think for them selves! they keep hacking at romney about abortion..yet they praise the heavens for reagan..who switched positions also!!! double standards..or just plain ignorance! or that thing called stupidity??remember....hitler was one of the most conservative ..ever! communist leaders are very conservative! they allow nothing to their disliking..or jail you or kill you!
elvis |
|
|
|