Possible Savior For Disgruntled GOP Announces He Hasn't Decided On Presidential Campaign, But Is Considering It

Chuck Hagel '08: The Republican Who Can Do What The Democrats Merely Threaten.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said today that he is not jumping into the 2008 presidential race — for now, at least — so he can concentrate on domestic and global concerns, particularly helping to bring an end to the Iraq war.
“I want to keep my focus on helping find a responsible way out of this tragedy and not divert my energy, efforts and judgment with competing political considerations,” Mr. Hagel said. “I will make a decision on my political future later this year."...

Yes yes yes. But does he have what Republicans crave most in a candidate -- a "reputation as an unpredictable maverick," which means, of course, "a reputation as a perfectly-predictable supporter of just about any and all Democratic policies"?

Why yes-- yes he does:

Mr. Hagel, who has developed a reputation as an unpredictable maverick during two terms in the Senate, made his remarks at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He left open three possibilities: running for president at the 11th hour, seeking re-election to the Senate or leaving politics entirely.

You know which one I'm rooting for-- but you know which one it really is too, don't ya?

Meantime, I'm sure you've seen this, but if you haven't, you ought to know. The media is rather less interested in Fred Dalton Thompson's interest in entering the race, because he is, alas, not an "unpredictable maverick" but rather solid on the conservative agenda, and, further, could actually win.

Have I entirely forsworn Rudy Giuliani? No, not entirely. I'm amazed that pro-life evangelicals are willing to overlook his not exactly crowd-pleasing policy on abortion -- I did not see that coming, honestly -- but it seems he's just taking far too many left-leaning positions, or, at least, is not walking them back fast enough for my liking. Making him, in my opinion, more likely a flash in the pan than someone who'll be racking up primary victories a year from now.

Still early, of course. And the man does have his virtues.

But I agree wholly with Mitt Romney supporter Dean Barnett on this:

When candidates back into the nomination because they’re the favorite or because the field is weak, you get unappealing or unqualified nominees. (Insert your own bipartisan list here – I’ll start things rolling by mentioning Dole, Dukakis and Clinton.) For the good of the country, I hope Thompson uses his appearance on Fox News Sunday tomorrow to announce he’s in it to win it.

Indeed, when the front runners are all perceived as too liberal for the party, there will inevitably be challengers from the right -- and if there to be such challengers, as it seems there must be, it's so much better to have a guy who can actually win the general election making that challenge.

If the party turns on its current front-runners in favor of -- apologies to supporters of these men -- a Sam Brownback or Tom Tancredo, we'll lose the general election. That simple.

So whether or not I support Fred Thompson (and, actually, I do), and whether or not I'm bothered by his strong conservative voting record (which, actually, I'm not), I'm a big fan of this particular challenger from the right.

The right of the party needs a voice -- and it might as well be a strong, reassuring, articulate, dramatically-trained one.

Mooting Gingrich: Gingrich could easily fill this role as star-power spokesman for the GOP right. My trouble with Gingrich is America's trouble with Gingrich -- the public simply doesn't seem to buy him as a national candidate. He is, I'm afraid, all but unelectable.

Thompson, should he enter the race, would fill Gingrich's hypethetical role, but with the added benefit that if he should actually take the nomination, he really could win the election. Which is, in the end, what counts.

I'm not one for sending messages or keeping to ideological purity at the expense of actually making policy and having the power to advance elements of the ideological agenda. If the GOP puts up another Dole sort of candidate, I'll do what I did in 1996 -- sit the elections out. I'm not wasting my time in the voting booth just to "send a message." I vote to in hopes of actually electing a winner.

As do most people.

Posted by: Ace at 04:24 PM

Comments

1 Conservatives are not going to elect a liberal from New York. Get that through your head dammit!

Conservatives are NOT going to elect some bald abortionist because he said the right things on 9/11, or the Gov. of Mass. just because he has good hair.

Get your head out of the media's ass please, and start thinking like a real conservative instead of propping up the RHINOs. You might as well just go ahead and cast your vote for McCain and save us the empty posts.

Posted by: Cary from Houston at March 12, 2007 04:30 PM (aJFeb)

2 Post the pic of Freds wifes tits again Ace.

Posted by: at March 12, 2007 04:30 PM (OEbrS)

3 Also, Fred's cool.

Posted by: Cary from Houston at March 12, 2007 04:32 PM (aJFeb)

4 Conservatives are not going to elect a liberal from New York. Get that through your head dammit!

Even in the general election? Versus a Democrat?

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 04:32 PM (R8+nJ)

5 Slublog, if our choice is a New York liberal vs. a New York liberal then you can just hang it up. There is no conservative GOP anymore if that is the case.

If those are our choices Slu, then what does it matter who you vote for? Result is the same.

Posted by: Cary from Houston at March 12, 2007 04:33 PM (aJFeb)

6 If those are our choices Slu, then what does it matter who you vote for? Result is the same.

Baloney. Let's take abortion. I think abortion is evil, but given the choice between someone who supports it but will compromise with conservatives and someone who supports it and will spit in the face of conservatives, I'll take the former.

Rudy may be liberal on abortion, but in order to appease the people from whom he needs votes, he'll need to move right on the issue, which he has started to do.

In order to appease their voters, the Democrats will need to stay hard left and if they win, will appoint judges who believe Roe v. Wade is not only good constitutional law, but holy writ.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 04:35 PM (R8+nJ)

7 "The media is rather less interested in Fred Dalton Thompson"

Yes it is and I cannot figure what is up with that.

I've searched far and wide and have found little.

What little I have found leads me to think the republicans have a much greater chance with Rudy.

Posted by: honest cloud at March 12, 2007 04:35 PM (a6vlD)

8 Fred's got a lock on the "gravitas" thing among the Republicans. None of the others can match him in that regard. Great conservative record, too. I'd happily vote for him, primary or general.

Posted by: Robert at March 12, 2007 04:36 PM (pCBxo)

9 Cary...three words. Universal. Health. Care.

Posted by: Sinistar at March 12, 2007 04:36 PM (oHd6r)

10 Sorry, Cary. That was a bit harsh in tone.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 04:38 PM (R8+nJ)

11 Slu,

It is not baloney, and I will not compromise between two abortionists. And see? Already you started... "he moved right on the issue". Why Slu? Why did he move right? THAT is the question you need to ask. Do you actually believe his "move" represents his feelings on abortion? OR, is it more likley he moved to win an election?

Posted by: Cary from Houston at March 12, 2007 04:40 PM (aJFeb)

12 I would SOOOO vote for Fred Thompson. PLEASE PLEASE RUN!!!!

Posted by: Jenny at March 12, 2007 04:40 PM (1Qzdb)

13 No need to apologize at all Slu. I did not take offense and I always enjoy sparring with you.

Posted by: Cary from Houston at March 12, 2007 04:41 PM (aJFeb)

14 Cary-

Whoa, back off there, Godzilla... I hear where you're going, and don't even necessarily disagree, but I would first ask if you're more comfortable with Hillary or Obama in than Rudy. In any event, if Freddie decides to get in, that will get my attention.

I'm with Ace on this one- I haven't given up on Rudy, but I'm not as thrilled as I thought I'd be by him. Watching Freddie on FNS yesterday, I wound up nodding in agreement a lot.

But hey- we seem to be entering a situation where stronger candidates begin to emerge. I can live with having a bunch of solid to good choices to pick from. And for God's sake, it's just like the congressional elections- we lose if we don't show up.

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at March 12, 2007 04:45 PM (QzsVu)

15 It is not baloney, and I will not compromise between two abortionists.

If Rudy is the Republican nominee, he will not be a perfect nominee. However, it is wrong to say that he would not be better than the alternative.

The difference is between a president who supports abortion, and a president who will mandate federal funding for abortion. Again, Rudy will have to move right. It doesn't matter a darn where he was or what his feelings on the issue are - this is a pretty results-oriented process for me. If he's willing to take action to appoint constructionist judges and keep my tax money from being spent on abortion, then that is worth voting for to keep a Democrat out of the White House.

Sure, it sucks that conservatives are stuck in the "lesser of two evils" camp, but let's face it - social cons haven't brought much to the table in the past few election cycles - two barely-won presidential cycles and a loss in the congressional cycle don't speak well to the ability of social cons to carry an election.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 04:46 PM (R8+nJ)

16 Does hagels wife have a nice ass?

Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 12, 2007 04:46 PM (QTv8u)

2. Post the pic of Freds wifes tits again Ace.

Yeah! I'm convinced that Mrs. Thompson's rack comprises a whole separate phylum of life form. And that's each one!

It's too soon to tell, but Mrs. Thompsons Rack could be another hitherto unknown super power for Good, akin to John Bolton's Moustache.

I wonder what (other) powers they possess?

Posted by: Bugeyed Male at March 12, 2007 04:47 PM (41Dd+)

18 Wicked-

How hot can the Hagel wife be with HAG in her name?

Just askin'...

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at March 12, 2007 04:48 PM (QzsVu)

19
Hagel will steal all the Democratic votes away from McCain!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at March 12, 2007 04:49 PM (KeOQp)

20 And Ace- interesting point about Thompson being the cloudless Gingrich... like most here, I'm rather fond of Newt's ideas that he brings to the table, but the 90s are still somewhat fresh in many minds... I guess the question for those reading is, how much baggage would he bring to a campaign?

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at March 12, 2007 04:50 PM (QzsVu)

21 I've searched far and wide and have found little.

You and every other leftist.

Posted by: Warden at March 12, 2007 04:51 PM (QWUn5)

22 I did not see that coming, honestly

We're tricksey with the precious.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 12, 2007 04:51 PM (o/D2i)

23 The idea that Guliani would go after the 2nd amendment or appoint pro-choice judges were he elected is just nonsense. The guy is smart enough to know who got him there and who would send him back, and he's smart enough to know the difference between a NY republican and a flyover Republican. Would he be as aggresive on those issues as a lot of us would like? Probably not, but he'd still be a hell of a lot better than any of the dems. Having said that, if Thompson gets in, i'll most likely support him. Hagel is a tool and he looks like like Droopy Dawg. Fuck that POS.

Posted by: forged rite at March 12, 2007 04:53 PM (VOZf4)

24 At the risk of being banned I will post this link again.

If you like the idea of FDT as a candidate, please go sign up here.

I think he is the last/best hope for conservatives in this election....period.

Posted by: A. Weasel at March 12, 2007 05:03 PM (3eu7Q)

25 McCain - Giuliani - Thompson.

Bald.

Last elected bald president?

Next.

Posted by: blaster at March 12, 2007 05:11 PM (7Q1rc)

26 The idea that Guliani would go after the 2nd amendment or appoint pro-choice judges were he elected is just nonsense.

Yeah, kinda like George W would never advocate squishy border policy with all us conservatives ready to send him back.

Giuliani may end up being the choice we're given, but if he gets elected, you can bet the Republican party of 2016 isn't going to be where we want it to be.

It may be necessary to vote for Giuliani-- 'cause of, you know, that whole "existential threat to the Republic" business with our Middle Eastern friends-- but I ain't going to enjoy it.

Posted by: a4g at March 12, 2007 05:12 PM (NR+cU)

27 Pretty much what a4g said. Political changes of heart are shaky at best.

Posted by: Sinistar at March 12, 2007 05:17 PM (oHd6r)

28 I find all this speculation of who is/is not running boring. It'll happen soon enough. Why rush it? It's much more exciting to discuss gladiator movies, don't you agree?

Posted by: red at March 12, 2007 05:27 PM (KaH1Y)

29 A. Weasel, the picture of Thompson at that link is awesome. It says "I'm trying to smile, but I'm so full of evil-Conservative kick-assitude that this is the closest you're going to get, you limp-wristed Mary."

Dude just got my vote. He's practically Cheney-esque.

Posted by: Sobek at March 12, 2007 05:35 PM (6GK9U)

30 Guliani is smart not to walk away from his positions in the past like Romney has done. Romney holds the same positions Guliani does and yet conservatives are supporting Romney because he said he really didn't mean all that stuff back then, which makes Romney and his supporters look bad. As for immigration, i live in Texas and would have been the first to hear complaints about Bush's immigration policies, which haven't changed since he was Governor, but i didn't hear any until a couple of years ago after his re-election. You can be sure that Guliani is hearing complaints about his stance on abortion and right to own arms every day and i don't see any reason to think that he would go against the wishes of the people who elected him.

Posted by: forged rite at March 12, 2007 05:42 PM (VOZf4)

31 I live in Nebraska.

Hagel's wife?

Not hawt.

Posted by: Vinnie at March 12, 2007 05:43 PM (fdAim)

32 He's practically Cheney-esque.

Practically???
He is more Chaney-esque than Chaney.
Sobeck, you have just seen a photo of the offspring of Chaneys Cock & Boltons Mustache.

Be Afraid my friend... very afraid.

Posted by: A. Weasel at March 12, 2007 05:45 PM (3eu7Q)

33 "America stands at an historic crossroads in its history,” Mr. Hagel said. “It is against this backdrop that I find myself at my own crossroads on my political future."

Helpful nav hint Chuck: Give her a pat on the ass and send the Mrs. down the road marked "sherlock's love nest - 1 mile - complete satisfaction guaranteed or we'll damn well die trying!"

You on the other hand take the other road, the one marked "O-fucken-blivion". Don't write, we'll let you know when we miss you.

Posted by: sherlock at March 12, 2007 05:47 PM (jdXw+)

34 Forgive him, Dark Lord Cheney, for he knows not what he says.

And BTW, Weasel, the name is Sobek. You're getting me confused with Sobeck, which is what bbeck and I plan on naming our love child.

Posted by: Sobek at March 12, 2007 05:51 PM (6GK9U)

35 bbeck and I plan on naming our love child.

Oh I really hate you now.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 12, 2007 05:56 PM (o/D2i)

36 Whoa, sherlock is reaming Chuck Hagel's wife? Who knew?

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 12, 2007 05:56 PM (CkYzD)

37 Sorry, I just read that.
Somtimes me no tipe so goood.

Posted by: A. Weasel at March 12, 2007 05:58 PM (3eu7Q)

38 Giuliani may end up being the choice we're given, but if he gets elected, you can bet the Republican party of 2016 isn't going to be where we want it to be.

Exactly why I'll vote 3rd party if Rudy or McCain gets the nomination. Yes, that means risking screwed with a Dem in office for 4 or 8 years, but if the Republican party is allowed to keep sliding to the left as they have the past 6 years we'll be even more screwed in the long run.

Thompson I'd vote for, Newt too. If Rudy or McCain (I'm on the fence regarding Romney) is the best we can do, it's time to fire a shot across the RNC's bow and let 'em know that enough is enough- stop acting like JFK wearing a Reagan costume or face defeat.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 12, 2007 06:08 PM (plsiE)

39 "Sorry, I just read that.
Somtimes me no tipe so goood."

No worries. At least you're doing better than those friggin' Greeks. "Suchos?" What the hell is that?

Posted by: Sobek at March 12, 2007 06:12 PM (6GK9U)

Great thoughts here, Ace. I have to also agree re: unelectable Newt. Fred seems to be right up my conservative alley, so I'm officially jumping on his bandwagon.

Has everyone seen Frank J's (?) post over at IMAO? Mucho Hilarioso.

http://www.imao.us/archives/007449.html/#comments

(sorry - haven't figured out link posting yet)

Posted by: Frankly at March 12, 2007 06:16 PM (VZTBU)

41 What little I have found leads me to think the republicans have a much greater chance with Rudy.

Posted by honest cloud at March 12, 2007 04:35 PM

I love it when liberals come in here and "advise" us that we're better off electing more liberal candidates.

Sorry hc, the role of faux conservative/sell out/traitor has already been taken by Kevin Phillips. Perhaps there's another position you're interested in?

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 12, 2007 06:16 PM (CkYzD)

Newt Gingrich is also a dirtbag. His past behaviour is reprehensible. I'll never vote for the sunuvabitch.

Thompson '08!

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 06:18 PM (/40mF)

43 Last bald, elected president? Ike.
Last bald, unelected prez? Ford.
Next bald nutsack prez if social cons throw a hissy? Hillary.

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at March 12, 2007 06:24 PM (MRI9M)

44 Me love Fred. Big mean redneck. Scrappy and blunt, but street smart about the DC games.

W is a mini Fred.

Posted by: kevlarchick at March 12, 2007 06:29 PM (kEguI)

45 I had a full head of hair until the day I died.

I looked, fabulous!

Posted by: William Howard Taft at March 12, 2007 06:33 PM (o/D2i)

46 "Oh I really hate you now."

The best was when someone called me "Slobek," which is what Slublog and I plan on naming our love child.

Posted by: Sobek at March 12, 2007 06:37 PM (6GK9U)

47 Be careful with that counselor Sobek.

He's quite fertile you know.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 12, 2007 06:38 PM (o/D2i)

48 The best was when someone called me "Slobek," which is what Slublog and I plan on naming our love child.

Dammnit, that was supposed to be a surprise!

You're on the futon tonight, buddy.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 06:40 PM (xBncq)

49 All of the social cons above who plan to teach the Republicans a lesson by voting for a 3rd party candidate can suck Feisty's dick. Seriously, you damned idiots, you're a fucking minority. Get used to it.

Those Kosites who won't vote for Hillary are similarly nutty. Guess what. The world is made up of mostly squishy middle of the roaders who want consistency and a buffet from which to choose. If you SOBs give me a freakin' Hillary presidency it's on like a pot of neck bones. (That means it's an all day affair for you non-Southerners.)

I will personally go Cheney-fu on you dumb asses if you're willing to let Hillary be president just to prove a fucking point.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 12, 2007 06:42 PM (akKrw)

50 I'll vote for Fred Thompson because he's bald, but only on the condition that he can still sub for Paul Harvey.

Posted by: profligatewaste at March 12, 2007 06:50 PM (DGbcX)

"I will personally go Cheney-fu on you dumb asses if you're willing to let Hillary be president just to prove a fucking point."

I like the enthusiasm! Get off your ass and go do something about it.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 06:52 PM (/40mF)

52 Straight from the "savior's" lips to our ears:

In an interview appearing in April editions of Esquire magazine -- set to hit stands next week -- Hagel suggests that President Bush could be subject to calls for impeachment as the Iraq war drags on.

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel said in the article. "Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes."

Posted by: Dalton at March 12, 2007 06:55 PM (zkeOi)

53 ErikW,
Way ahead of you and since I'll be in Florida by the time of the election my vote will actually count.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 12, 2007 07:07 PM (akKrw)

54 "The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel said in the article. "Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes."

Jackass.

Anyone here from Nebraska? Could you maybe give this guy a swift kick in the pants come election time?

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 07:14 PM (xBncq)

55 Rock on, Nom de Blog! Let's get behind Thompson! Our side is so weak it's embarrassing.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 07:15 PM (cZY6q)

56 Somehow or other its always social conservatives that are told to compromise. Meanwhile I don't see anyone rushing to find a high-tax and high-spending candidate for this election, as a compromise, and I don't see anyone cheering for Hagel because he's moderate on national security.

The truth is that the Republican candidate should be acceptable to gun conservatives, social conservatives, national security conservatives, and fiscal conservatives. Probably put immigration conservatives in that mix now too. That doesn't mean being 100% in agreement with each group but it does mean making some significant concessions. Rudy hasn't done that. He's said nothing meaningful on judges, he supports the Democrat position on partial birth abortion, he's refused to rule out federal funding of abortions, he has not retracted his anti-gun positions, or his support for illegal immigration. I'm not writing him off yet, because he has time to see the light, but as of right now I wouldn't support him.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 12, 2007 07:23 PM (w4Bx4)

57 Anyone here from Nebraska? Could you maybe give this guy a swift kick in the pants come election time?

Either that or an atomic wedgie.

I'd pay to see that.

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 12, 2007 07:31 PM (CkYzD)

58 EofI,
Have you noticed that the courts have taken the gun issue largely out of the federal purview?

Social cons are asked to compromise because they're the ones with extreme views. Deal with that shit. Politics necessitates compromise and those with extreme views are constantly disappointed. That's just the fucking way it is.

Other than that:
"Partial birth abortion" or "Cutting a baby up while it's inside a woman so that doctors can perform more "procedures" and thereby make more money" is extremely unpopular -- I'm with you on that one.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 12, 2007 07:32 PM (akKrw)

59 he supports the Democrat position on partial birth abortion

Rudy Giuliani, Hannity and Colmes, February 2007

GIULIANI: Partial birth abortion? I think that’s going to be upheld. I think that ban’s gonna be upheld. I think it should be. I think as long as there’s a provision for the life of the mother then that’s something that should be done.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 07:43 PM (xBncq)

60 I will personally go Cheney-fu on you dumb asses if you're willing to let Hillary be president just to prove a fucking point.

Yeah, Hillary might really fuck things up, like enacting more gun control, support federal funding for abortion, offer amnesty and federal benefits to illegal immigrants, etc.

Oh, wait- Rudy might very well do those things too based on his previously stated positions. Remind me again why I should vote for the guy?

They wan't my vote, they're going to do more to earn it than simply have an "R" next to their name. I'll trade 4 years of Hillary for a Republican party that starts acting like Republicans are supposed to instead of one not worth voting for except as the lesser of two evils as seems to be the case now.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 12, 2007 07:45 PM (plsiE)

61 The truth is that the Republican candidate should be acceptable to gun conservatives, social conservatives, national security conservatives, and fiscal conservatives. Probably put immigration conservatives in that mix now too. That doesn't mean being 100% in agreement with each group but it does mean making some significant concessions.

Mr. Hammer, you're under arrest for hitting Mr. Nail on the head.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 12, 2007 07:49 PM (plsiE)

62 Hollowpoint,
Your definition of Republican is askew. And you're the Kosites of the Right if you insist on ideological purity. Hope you're happy with your new Democrat overlords.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 12, 2007 07:50 PM (akKrw)

63 The truth is that the Republican candidate should be acceptable to gun conservatives, social conservatives, national security conservatives, and fiscal conservatives. Probably put immigration conservatives in that mix now too.

Who, pray tell, is this mystery candidate?

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 07:50 PM (xBncq)

64 Er, some dude named Fred. I think he's popular.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 07:53 PM (cZY6q)

65 I can live with Fred.

Hell, I can do more than live with the guy - I'd support him.

If he was the nominee, I would pray that Edwards was the Dem, just to watch the evisceration.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 07:57 PM (xBncq)

"Hell, I can do more than live with the guy - I'd support him."

Thank you! Are you seeing the light now?

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 08:30 PM (cZY6q)

67 Thank you! Are you seeing the light now?

Well, I like Rudy a lot. But would have to strongly consider Fred if he ran.

For the "Russians don't take a dump without a plan" line alone.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 08:44 PM (xBncq)

68 My motto this election year: anyone but McCain.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 08:44 PM (xBncq)

69 Hollowpoint,
Your definition of Republican is askew. And you're the Kosites of the Right if you insist on ideological purity. Hope you're happy with your new Democrat overlords.

Then that apparently makes you the Lincoln Chafee of the Right.

I don't expect every candidate to score 100% with the Heritage Foundation, or that I should agree with them 100% on every issue- as far as I know, the only person that agrees with me 100% is me.

Were it just abortion or gay marriage for instance, I could live with that; hell, those aren't major issue for me anyways even if the position of the Republican party is (supposedly) quite clear. I've disagreed with every single candidate I've ever voted for on at least a few (and usually more than a few) matters. However, when the frontrunner has a history of departing from Republican principles on several core issues it's time to sound the alarm.

Bush Sr. was a "moderate" (though certainly less so than Rudy) who reversed himself on issues like abortion and tried convincing us he was a conservative... and we got more gun control, more taxes, David Souter and more government regulations in return for our votes.

Sorry, but if Rudy is the best the Republicans can come up with, then clearly I've been mistaken on what the Republican party is supposed to stand for and need to find a new home. Maybe those nutty Libertarians will have me.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 12, 2007 08:48 PM (v8vVW)

70 Mr Thompson has some negatives, but I believe he can work past them. He's certainly the strongest possibility I've seen out there so far, he's the guy that can pull the widest range of voters to him, without the divisiveness that others bring. And he'd demolish anyone in a debate, hands down.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 12, 2007 08:49 PM (wmgz8)

71 Giuliani is now anti PBA and has vowed to nominate Scalia-style orginal-intent strict constructionists. That's pretty much all that Bush ever promised, or delivered.

As for the rest, it's too early to say. He hasn't recanted many of his older, more liberal positions (positions, note, he was taking when challenging Hillary for the senate in very liberal New York), but neither has he reaffirmed him.

I think he's delaying making such announcements until necessary-- because speaking clearly on these issues will hurt him. He'll either get the flip-flop tag that dogs Romney or else consign himself to defeat in the primaries. It's hardly any wonder then he's putting off such unpleasantness until absolutely required to do so.

And anyone who prefers a Democrat over a socially-moderate Republican is, I think, childish. You can toss your vote away on Libertarians if you like, but more sober and practically-minded folks will make the choice voters have been making for over 200 years: between the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: ace at March 12, 2007 08:54 PM (+u1X0)

"anyone but McCain."

Ain't that the truth!

Giuliani is a fraud. So is McCain. Thompson is the best bet for Conservatives.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 09:01 PM (6+5Wv)

"As for the rest, it's too early to say. He hasn't recanted many of his older, more liberal positions (positions, note, he was taking when challenging Hillary for the senate in very liberal New York), but neither has he reaffirmed him."

Irrelevant. He's established himself as a New Yorker. He's screwed.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 09:24 PM (7zkx/)

74 Giuliani is a fraud. So is McCain. Thompson is the best bet for Conservatives.

That's a bit harsh on Giuliani. He's shown signs of moving toward the right, and if he's the nominee, I'll support him wholeheartedly. I'm not registered Republican, so I can't participate in the primaries.

But I can't say this enough: anyone. but. McCain.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 09:41 PM (xBncq)

Sorry, allow me to clarify myself.

Giuliani is NOT against abortion.

If you didn't hear it the first time, I'll shout.

GIULIANI IS OKAY WITH KILLING BABIES!

If that isn't evil, I don't know what is.

Carry on.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 09:48 PM (7zkx/)

76 And anyone who prefers a Democrat over a socially-moderate Republican is, I think, childish. You can toss your vote away on Libertarians if you like, but more sober and practically-minded folks will make the choice voters have been making for over 200 years: between the lesser of two evils.

I certainly wouldn't prefer a Democrat to a "moderate" Republican; if I did I'd vote Democrat. However I'm not throwing my vote to someone who's going to screw me, either.

Voting strictly along party lines without regard to the actual candidate isn't exactly productive in holding officeholders or political parties accountable. The "lesser of two evils" theory might be a reality most of the time and one I usually live with, but there has to come a point when moving too far to the Dark Side has repercussions.

Being that Minnesota's electoral votes haven't gone to a Republican since I was in diapers means that my vote doesn't matter anyways, but either way I'm not endorsing a shift to the left by the party that has in every election I've voted in has represented the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 12, 2007 10:02 PM (v8vVW)

77 And anyone who prefers a Democrat over a socially-moderate Republican is, I think, childish.

When there's no tangible difference between the two I can't fathom why.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 12, 2007 10:02 PM (wmgz8)

78 Slublog, I'm passionate about my beliefs and I I'm sorry if I might rub you the wrong way but I refuse to accept anything less than right-to-life.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 10:04 PM (7zkx/)

79 Slublog, I'm passionate about my beliefs and I I'm sorry if I might rub you the wrong way but I refuse to accept anything less than right-to-life.

No skin off my nose.

Unlike ace and Dave in Texas (who cry themselves to sleep if someone is harsh with them online), I don't take this sort of thing personally.

I'm more practical on the right to life thing. If Rudy is personally pro-choice, then that's unfortunate, but as long as he does the right things while in office, I'll support him.

He would be a damn sight better than Hillary, Obama or Edwards, who would go hard left on the issue and whose judge nominees would ensure that abortion is legal for decades to come.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 10:07 PM (xBncq)

80 Kidding about ace and Dave in Texas, by the way.

They don't cry.

They drink.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 10:10 PM (xBncq)

81 That's a bit harsh on Giuliani. He's shown signs of moving toward the right, and if he's the nominee, I'll support him wholeheartedly.

And we've seen over and over again that during the primaries, Republicans move to the right and Democrats move to the left. Come general election time, they move closer to the center.

I understand the political reality, but if someone like Rudy moves back to the center-left for the general election or after being elected, we'll end up eating a heaping dish of RINO for 4 years followed by a Democrat the following election.

If recent history is a guide, it's not a matter of if, but when Rudy will turn his back on conservatives if elected- the "moderates" ALWAYS do. Every. Single. Time.

Personally I'm baffled as to why he's a frontrunner if it's not the name recognition factor.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 12, 2007 10:17 PM (v8vVW)

82 Personally I'm baffled as to why he's a frontrunner if it's not the name recognition factor.

I think there are two reasons.

1. He's not John McCain. I think a lot of Republicans are really, really tired of McCain's "maverick" b.s. The guy sticks the shiv in his fellow Republicans or the constitution any time he thinks it will get him a good headline, and eventually, that stuff just gets old.

2. He's a son of a bitch. George W. Bush has been an absolute pansy dealing with the Democrats. Giuliani is decidedly not a pansy, and likes to scrap with those in the opposite party and in the media. That's an attractive quality to people tired of watching a president try to make nice for seven years while getting slapped all the time.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 10:21 PM (xBncq)

83 That's cool, I'm not going to try and change your mind. I'll tell you why I'm anti-abortion. My sister got pregnant when she was 15 and I wanted her to abort the baby. I'm thankful she didn't, Haley is 9 years old and a Girl Scout. Know what I'm saying, dude? Big wake up call, man.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 10:23 PM (7zkx/)

84 George W. Bush has been an absolute pansy dealing with the Democrats. Giuliani is decidedly not a pansy, and likes to scrap with those in the opposite party and in the media. That's an attractive quality to people tired of watching a president try to make nice for seven years while getting slapped all the time.

Word.

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 12, 2007 10:28 PM (dA8LR)

85 Nuff of that. Giuliani has no credibility. He's not a Republican. I don't trust him.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 10:31 PM (7zkx/)

86 That's cool, I'm not going to try and change your mind. I'll tell you why I'm anti-abortion. My sister got pregnant when she was 15 and I wanted her to abort the baby. I'm thankful she didn't, Haley is 9 years old and a Girl Scout. Know what I'm saying, dude? Big wake up call, man. I'm actually quite pro-life. I think abortion is evil. But as long as a candidate does the right thing on an issue, I could give two craps what he or she thinks about it. I have an-almost one year old daughter and many of my friends are about to have kids. It's sonogram pictures (especially the 3D ones) that have cemented my pro-life views.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 10:35 PM (xBncq)

87 Fred Thompson is, so far, the only candidate I would put time in campaigning for. I'd also donate money, not just my vote.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at March 12, 2007 10:36 PM (ns1ml)

88 McCain - Giuliani - Thompson.

Bald.

Last elected bald president?

Next.

Anyone old enough to remember that Marshall McLuhan said Nixon could have stayed in office if he had grown an Abe Lincoln beard? I love that kind of stuff. Even when I hate how shallow that means our political discourse is.

Because I think it's largely true that that shit matters most to most voters.

Posted by: Mild Observer at March 12, 2007 10:40 PM (SZ0Rw)

" I think abortion is evil. But as long as a candidate does the right thing on an issue, I could give two craps what he or she thinks about it. "

So you just lied.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 10:52 PM (7zkx/)

90 Giuliani may have a great oportunity coming up. The DC gun-control decision may be the Roe v Wade of RKBA if upheld by SCotUS (though legitimate, not fraudulent). Giuliani can use the same shuck that so many Democrats use on abortion: "I'm personally opposed to gun ownership, but the Supreme Court Has Spoken, and that's the end of that." If he wants to. He has to realize that gun owners are a key constituency for a Republican Presidential candidate.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom at March 12, 2007 10:55 PM (n/CHn)

91 So you just lied.

No. I just think results are more important than "feelings."

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 10:57 PM (xBncq)

92 What do I mean by that?

Reagan was pro-life, and he appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the court.

Bush was pro-life and he appointed Souter.

Beliefs aren't everything.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 11:04 PM (xBncq)

"Beliefs aren't everything."

Faith, dude.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 11:12 PM (6+5Wv)

94 What do you mean by that?

That isn't a sarcastic or hostile question, BTW. Just wondering what you're saying.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 11:14 PM (xBncq)

95 Name for me the one and only thing an anti-abortion conservative can do as POTUS that would change anything w/rt Roe v. Wade.

HINT: Nominate judges is the only answer.

Personal opinions on the issue matter not one whit until the law of the land isn't anymore. So pardon me if I think your toe-the-Party-line position is horse shit.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 12, 2007 11:19 PM (akKrw)

What's important to you? What's special?

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 11:20 PM (6+5Wv)

97 What's important to me?

Certainly not politics.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 11:21 PM (xBncq)

98 If a candidate or a politician votes and acts in a way that is acceptable, their personal feelings on an issue mean little to me. That's what I'm trying to say. I'm a pragmatist.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 11:23 PM (xBncq)

99 Slublog, I'm shocked. Are you an Atheist or something?

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 11:24 PM (i7BFJ)

100 Slublog, I'm shocked. Are you an Atheist or something?

No. Quite the opposite. Stop reading into my words.

But politics is about results. Faith is about belief (and if you believe James, results as well).

I'm just tired of politicians who say the right things, but do the wrong. I'd rather have someone who did the right thing, despite what they personally believed, than a politican who did the wrong thing while pretending to be a conservative.

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 11:29 PM (xBncq)

101 Apparently ErikW's Bible says nothing to the effect of "Thou Shalt not be an Ass Hole".

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 12, 2007 11:41 PM (akKrw)

102

Slublog, I get it. Let's agree to disagree and all that.

Posted by: ErikW at March 12, 2007 11:50 PM (i7BFJ)

103 Slublog, I get it. Let's agree to disagree and all that.

Oh yeah? Well you CAN JUST...

What?

Oh, yeah. I can live with that. :-)

Posted by: Slublog at March 12, 2007 11:58 PM (xBncq)

104 Hey, Nom de Blog, I was on your side but maybe you'd like to start some shit. Got a fucking problem?

Posted by: ErikW at March 13, 2007 12:07 AM (i7BFJ)

105 I think there are two reasons.

And I think those two reasons are dead on. Which is why Mr Thompson would do the job nicely, thank you. He has all of Giuliani's plusses and none of the negatives.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 13, 2007 12:09 AM (wmgz8)

106 Stop! Sorry, let's please stop. We should be all in this together. My bad!

Posted by: ErikW at March 13, 2007 12:11 AM (i7BFJ)

107

'Apparently ErikW's Bible says nothing to the effect of "Thou Shalt not be an Ass Hole".'

I changed my mind. Rip me any time you'd like. I can take it.

Posted by: ErikW at March 13, 2007 12:23 AM (i7BFJ)

108

Erik, just a tip: lighten the fuck up. Single issue voters and ideologues are no prettier on the right than the left. There are lots of important issues in this country, and we can't all agree on which they are. That's why platforms exist - to disappoint everyone as little as possible while still providing forward movement.

You'll catch a lot more flies with tap water than hydrochloric acid. Not that you're trying to catch flies, mind you, but I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: Patton at March 13, 2007 12:41 AM (KxnQ8)

109

Patton, it's a pretty serious issue, don't ya think? Um, stopping baby's heartbeats? Are you guys really that cold hearted?

Posted by: ErikW at March 13, 2007 12:53 AM (i7BFJ)

110 Social cons are asked to compromise because they're the ones with extreme views. Deal with that shit.

All conservative opinions are "extreme." That's just the fuckin' way it is. If you want to run a RINO, be my guest, just don't expect me to vote for him.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 01:20 AM (A9P8+)

111

"Last elected bald president? "

Eisenhower. Next?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at March 13, 2007 01:23 AM (lCheg)

112 EofI,
Just make sure you're there to welcome you Hillary-ous new overlords.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 13, 2007 01:32 AM (akKrw)

113 Giuliani is now anti PBA and has vowed to nominate Scalia-style orginal-intent strict constructionists. That's pretty much all that Bush ever promised, or delivered.

Neither of these hold up. The judge thing sorta does, but he still defends Roe v. Wade. Anyone who thinks Roe v. Wade is defensible has not clue what original intent or strict construction looks like. I can see Giuliani appointing a Harriett but unlike Bush I wouldn't see him backing down.

And as for the PBA, there are basically three positions. The Republican position is a total ban. The unsophisticated Democratic position is to oppose the ban. The sophisticated Democratic position is a ban with life and health exceptions, which sounds good except the exceptions are left up to the discretion of the abortionist, so the ban is meaningless. I AM NOT comforted at all that Giuliani is apparently going for the sophisticated Democratic position.

Also, that is not all that Bush has done. He's cut off US funding of abortions abroad via executive order, sustained the Hyde amendment which cuts off federal funding to abortions in this country, and kept us from funding embryo-destroying research. Giuliani favored federal abortion funding and has yet to recant. Dunno his position on the others but I'm betting it isn't good.

On guns: if you think the courts are taking the issue out of politics, you're ignorant. At most, the Supreme Court will rule that you can't have a total, outright ban on guns. Most everything that gun owners fight about will still be up for grabs. I'm talking about things like gun registration, gunshow regulation, assault weapons bans, and lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Give me a Fred Thompson or a flip-flopper anyday.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 01:34 AM (A9P8+)

114 Not that Giuliani needs to flip-flop. He just needs to say something like, "my goal is to see the terrorists down and make this government work. I understand that I need a broad coalition of pro-American patriots behind me. But some Americans have had understandable concerns about some of my past policies in New York. They worry that I will try to apply them generally. So while we have had and may continue to have private disagreements, I am willing to make the following specific commitments. I cannot promise to go beyond these commitments, but I can promise to keep my word like it was written in steel.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 01:41 AM (A9P8+)

115 Nom de Blog,

If your RINO strategy makes King Hillary more likely, maybe its not as pragmatic as you think.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 01:43 AM (A9P8+)

116

I'd vote for Thompson if he decides to run. Hell, I'd send him money. I can't say that about any other candidate(the money).

As far as the "anyone but mccain" thing, well...I say "anyone but a dhimmicrat."

I'd rather have a little than nothing at all, or worse, having what little I have now taken away.

Posted by: drolmorg at March 13, 2007 01:46 AM (X7EuD)

117 EofI,
You're in the minority. Act like it.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 13, 2007 02:03 AM (akKrw)

118 Its a bit early to be getting into fistfights over candidates, not to mention counterproductive. But I really do think Thompson is a guy every conservative and moderate can get behind comfortably, and he's got a great voice and delivery. I suspect this guy can campaign like Reagan and give killer speeches, he's the Anti-Bush in that sense.

Homespun wisdom and delivery seems to utterly disarm the press.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 13, 2007 02:17 AM (wmgz8)

119

Erik:

"Patton, it's a pretty serious issue, don't ya think? Um, stopping baby's heartbeats? Are you guys really that cold hearted?"

Yeah, it's a serious issue, and has been for 30-odd years. But it's not the ONLY issue, and is arguably not the most important. More tellingly, it's not an issue that the president can expect to change in any direct manner, unlike the possibilities for a president's direct impact on other important matters.

I'd never tell you to drop it, because it's important to you, as well as to a lot of people. But I'm just suggesting you at least allow some room in the process for the other issues that I'm sure are also important to you, and to everyone else.

Posted by: Patton at March 13, 2007 02:48 AM (KxnQ8)

120 I think Patton just said what I've been saying, but more diplomatically.

What Patton said.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 13, 2007 04:13 AM (akKrw)

121

EricW,

While I admire and respect your commitment to the pro life cause, I think a certain amount of cold hearted pragmatism is sometimes in order when it comes to politics.

Giuliani is currently the front runner. He seems to be the man to beat, at this juncture, (although if Fred Thompson throws his hat into the ring, the dynamic changes entirely). If we pro lifers don't get behind Giuliani, then we could be looking at Democrats controlling the whole shebang after the 08 elections. Keep in mind that the Democrats today, are not the Democrats of yesterday. Most of these guys are hard core leftists. I keep hearing the word Stalinist to describe the Democrats in congress. I think it's an apt description. I shudder to think how it would be if they were back in complete power.

If Giuliani promises to appoint strict originalist judges, that will be enough for me.

And nobody is more pro life than me, I've got six kids to prove it.

Posted by: Crazy Lady at March 13, 2007 10:17 AM (FLSjt)

122 Nom de Blog,

Most parts of the Republican coalition are in the minority. That's why its a coalition. If y'all want to start dropping pieces of the coalition, then the coalition as a whole will be in the minority. Sorry, but that's pragmatism. If the GOP doesn't do anything for me, I won't do anything for the GOP. That's pragmatism too.

Patton,

You keep talking like pro-life and social conservative views are incompatible with strong defense, so they have to take second seat. I disagree. The GOP candidate should be good on both. If the GOP decides to nominate a candidate who rejects pro-life issues, its not because the GOP has to. its because the GOP chooses too, and I will react accordingly.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 11:35 AM (w4Bx4)

123 Crazy lady,

Supporting Giuliani because he's inevitable is crazy. That's the kind of thinking that got John Kerry the nomination.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 11:38 AM (w4Bx4)

124 If the GOP decides to nominate a candidate who rejects pro-life issues, its not because the GOP has to. its because the GOP chooses too, and I will react accordingly.

Your rhetoric makes it seem as though the GOP is still a conspiracy of cigar-chomping party bosses who decide upon a nominee in secret meetings.

If Giuliani is chosen as the nominee, it will be because a majority of GOP voters elected him. That majority will doubtless include pro-life voters in addition to those who are pro-choice. If a minority of the pro-life movement of the GOP reject the nominee the majority has chosen through a pretty extensive primary process and that rejection leads to an electoral defeat in the general election, how will that further the pro-life cause?

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 11:40 AM (R8+nJ)

125 This probably appears above, but isn't Giuliani/Thompson the logical thing, unless things look up to the point where we can get away with Rudy/Jeb?

Posted by: Mahon at March 13, 2007 11:44 AM (oFhek)

126 Hillary could promise to appoint strict-construction judges. It wouldn't mean anything, as long as she supports Roe v. Wade. But she would be savvy to make that promise, especially if Giuliani were her opponent, because her position would be identical to his. She would be personally opposed to abortion, he would be personally opposed to abortion. She would have a strong pro-abortion record, he would have a strong pro-abortion record. She would have offered public support for Roe v. Wade, he would have offered public support for Roe v. Wade. He would have said he would appoint strict construction judges, she would have said she'd appoint strict construction judges. She would be mealymouthed about partial birth abortion and the Hyde amendment, he would be mealymouthed about partial birth abortion and the Hyde amendment.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 11:45 AM (w4Bx4)

127 Personally, I would like to see Thompson/Giuliani or Giuliani/Thompson. That would satisfy all of the elements of this coalition.

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 11:46 AM (R8+nJ)

128 That's a nice scenario, but let's face it - Hillary will not support constructionist judges, because Democrats in the Senate would not allow it.

But again, how would the pro-life cause be furthered by turning its members into electoral spoilers who show an unwillingness for political compromise?

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 11:48 AM (R8+nJ)

129

Hillary could promise to appoint strict-construction judges. It wouldn't mean anything, as long as she supports Roe v. Wade. But she would be savvy to make that promise, especially if Giuliani were her opponent, because her position would be identical to his.

Coulda woulda shoulda...she won'ta. The nutroots would eat her alive.

Posted by: Nice Deb at March 13, 2007 11:50 AM (FLSjt)

130 Think strategically, Slublog. If the GOP pays no price for ignoring pro-lifers or gun people or immigration people, then it will. If the GOP does pay a price, then it won't.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 11:54 AM (w4Bx4)

131 And no way Kerry would oppose gay marriage, right? The netroots would eat him alive.

Hillary can get away with promising to appoint strict constructionist judges because as long as she supports Roe v. Wade the promise doesn't mean anything (not that a Hillary promise means anything anyway).

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 11:56 AM (w4Bx4)

132

Supporting Giuliani because he's inevitable is crazy. That's the kind of thinking that got John Kerry the nomination.

It's not that he's inevitable, he's the most viable choice at the moment. As it stands, now, Romney would have my vote in the primaries. But I don't think he really has a prayer, at this point. The MSM would turn the election into a complete anal exam of the Morman religion, with all the jokes and mocks that would go along with it, and that would just be terrible to behold.

If Fred Thompson enters the race, the dynamic changes. significantly. He would have my full and enthusiastic, support.

Posted by: Nice Deb at March 13, 2007 11:59 AM (FLSjt)

133 Think strategically, Slublog. If the GOP pays no price for ignoring pro-lifers or gun people or immigration people, then it will. If the GOP does pay a price, then it won't.

I am thinking strategically. The idea that interest groups within a party should make that party "pay a price" is the politics of petulance - "if we don't get our way, we're taking our ball away" is the stuff of playground taunts, not serious politics. If Giuliani wins the primary, representatives of pro-life groups should instead approach Giuliani, wring some concessions out of him in exchange for support and then hold his feet to the fire.

What bothers me about the position expressed by the representatives of the pro-life movement is the idea that the proper words are more important than the proper actions. If Giuliani appoints the right judges, prevents federal funds from paying for abortion, and supports the partial-birth abortion ban, those are solid policy steps that will lead to fewer abortions.

If he's willing to do those things, the state of his heart regarding abortion is essentially meaningless. He can believe in it all he wants, just so long as he's willing to represent those who elected him.

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 12:02 PM (R8+nJ)

134 I should add that causing a candidate to lose does not tend to make a political party say "Hey, we really need them," but instead makes them think "Those a-holes. Guess we can't count on them."

Voting is a mechanism to make decisions, not communicate a message.

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 12:04 PM (R8+nJ)

135 Volcano lancing!

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 12:18 PM (w4Bx4)

136 Well, any candidate that doesn't support volcano lancing is just a no go, obviously.

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 12:18 PM (R8+nJ)

137

EofI: "You keep talking like pro-life and social conservative views are incompatible with strong defense, so they have to take second seat."

No I don't.

There isn't a single issue, not one, that deserves focus above all others. Not even abortion, hot issue that it is.

There are those, smarter than me, who've said abortion is the issue that animates the left above all other issues, to the detriment of the left. I think it would be a shame to see that happen to the right.

It's part of the puzzle, but isn't, and hasn't been for 30+ years, an executive or legislative issue. As a result, it can't easily be altered by the election of a president or legislators. That's why overfocus on it makes no electoral sense.

Posted by: Patton at March 13, 2007 12:20 PM (KxnQ8)

138 No you're not thinking strategically, Slublog. It has a specific meaning in economics. Strategic thinking is rejecting a bargain, even though you're worse off when you reject the bargain, so that next time you get offered a better bargain. People who don't think strategically usually end up being offered crumbs. Its what the RINOs are trying to do to the pro-life crowd: we're going to nominate Giuliani, who's bad on abortion, and you can't do anything about it because Hillary! would be worse.

I'm all in favor of wringing concessions from Giuliani. The point is that as of right now he hasn't made any. You say that pro-lifers are hung up on words but so far words is all Giuliani has offered. He's talked about "originalist" judges but still supports Roe v. Wade, he's come out in support of a partial birth abortion ban with exceptions that gut the thing, he's stated that he does not support the Hyde amendment (which ends federal funding of abortion) but that he "respects" it.

Voting is a way to make decisions, and if pro-lifers end up sitting out 2008 their decision is that they cannot accept a candidate who isn't minimally acceptable on pro-life issues.

What I have yet to hear from you or any other Giuliani supporter is why the GOP should select in the primary someone who's not broadly acceptable to the different components of the base.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 12:27 PM (w4Bx4)

139 Patton,

Who's talking about overfocus? Is anyone insisting that it be Giuliani's main concern?

What you and others seem to be saying is that any focus on pro-life issues is overfocus. I don't buy that. Lots of issues are important to me, Giuliani is bad on almost all of them, and if he doesn't make significant concessions on most of them, there's a chance I will not support him even in the general election for strategic reasons. I just don't see why the GOP should nominate a candidate who's not representative of GOP positions.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 12:32 PM (w4Bx4)

140 EofI,
You don't know what the fuck your talking about w/rt strategic thinking. What your advocating is tactical thinking, at best. You really ought not try to 'sound' smart.

And if you choose to define RINO thusly, "Anybody who disagrees with EofI about abortion is a RINO," then you'll be in the political wilderness forever.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 13, 2007 12:44 PM (akKrw)

141 Your economic model is well and good, but does not take into account the fact that the pro-life movement of today is not the pro-life movement of the 1980s. Pro-life voters simply do not have the political strength they once did. Your model of strategic bargaining is dependent upon both sides acting in good faith. If pro-life voters come to the table with the full intention of pulling their support from anyone who does not meet their specific criteria, regardless of what anyone else in the Republican coalition may think, then that hardly constitutes good faith.

What I have yet to hear from you or any other Giuliani supporter is why the GOP should select in the primary someone who's not broadly acceptable to the different components of the base.

Again, acceptability is determined in the primary process and because that process is made up of voters from all components of the base, the eventual nominee is someone who, by definition, is broadly acceptable. If the pro-life caucus is as powerful as you assume, they should be able to defeat Giuliani in the primary process. If they do not, then that doesn't speak well to their political strength.

The issue here is again of good faith - if Giuliani can make it through the process, he's proven his acceptability to a broad range of Republican voters. If the pro-life voters still reject him after that process is complete, that would show they are more interested in getting their way than in being part of a coalition.

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 12:45 PM (R8+nJ)

142 I just don't see why the GOP should nominate a candidate who's not representative of GOP positions.

If he's the nominee, then by default he represents the party's positions. That is the purpose of a primary.

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 12:47 PM (R8+nJ)

143 Being part of a coalition has no value per se. Political coalitions work not because we should all be committed to the coalition for some reason but because the factions in the coalition all get something out of it. But to this point Giuliani doesn't offer prolifers or gun people or immigration people much of anything.

For this reason I think its pretty unlikely that Giuliani will win the primaries given his current set of positions, but its possible that some of y'all will decide to screw the coalition and support Giuliani because he's good on the issues you like, or because independents are voting in the primaries, or because a bunch of folks have all convinced themselves that he's inevitable on the basis that everyone else supports him on the basis that's he's inevitable. Y'all can go over that cliff if you like but don't count on me taking the dive with you.

The best way to avoid disaser is to hold Giuliani accountable now.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 01:21 PM (w4Bx4)

144 If the pro-life caucus is as powerful as you assume, they should be able to defeat Giuliani in the primary process.

Pro-lifers are not a minority within the Republican party. Rudy will also have big problems with advocates of gun rights and traditional marriage, and rightfully so.

Posted by: slatz at March 13, 2007 01:24 PM (sWUnU)

145 Pro-lifers are not a minority within the Republican party. Rudy will also have big problems with advocates of gun rights and traditional marriage, and rightfully so.

If so, fine. To keep the Democrats out of the White House, I will vote for whoever the eventual nominee is, regardless of whether that person fits neatly into my ideological template.

Posted by: Slublog at March 13, 2007 01:29 PM (R8+nJ)

146 slatz,

If you think the "No abortion even in cases of rape and incest!" crowd is a majority then you're bogartin' the crack pipe. Pass that shit, yo.

The majority is the "Abortion should not be used as birth control." crowd.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 13, 2007 03:14 PM (akKrw)

147 Right, a majority of Americans oppose abortion on demand, but that doesn't mean they oppose Abortion as much as I do. Just means there's more work to do.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 13, 2007 03:38 PM (wmgz8)

148 Homos.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 13, 2007 04:05 PM (w4Bx4)

149 I never understood why people are so quick to hang the flip-flopper label. The essence of the scientific method is that if your theory is busted, you adjust it. That's a good thing.

To clarify:

Good idea: Making adjustments because your theory is untenable.

Bad idea: Doing so because you think it'll get you votes. I'm looking at you, Kerry.

If the scientific method were taught in school, maybe we would have a more critically-thinking populace.

Which is bad if you're a politician. Or an AGW wacko. Or a looney religious leader.

Which is probably why it isn't.

I could see Thompson. Last time we elected an actor, the Iranians rolled over and the Soviet Union fell. Not too shabby.

Posted by: MegaTroopX at March 14, 2007 11:48 PM (v5fbO)

150 syawjp jlkcbx qtvoisx vhgfk bwzjm ujcq ahmiz

Posted by: hmydsl kxqiae at May 23, 2008 03:48 PM (IFscl)

151 出会い

Posted by: 出会い at October 10, 2009 11:43 AM (/WBMN)

Posted by: replica watches at August 19, 2010 02:05 AM (g+Q+V)

Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.0963 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0074 seconds, 162 records returned.
Page size 177 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.