BKennedy on August 16, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Agreed, and well stated.

But Rudy, as imperfect as he is, is better than any of the “classic” Dems. We take a deep breath, gulp, and pull the lever for Rudy if he is the final choice. The same with the other, every candidate will have a group that loves them, and a group that hates them. The haters have to take that deep breath…whether it is; Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Tancredo, McCain, Newt, whomever.
Giving in to the liberal left is not an option for me. And none of the candidates for Dem. is even close to a center left.

1992 Edition: Winner: Bill Clinton. Yay Ross Perot.
1996 Edition: Winner: Bill Clinton II. Yay Ross Perot
2000 Edition: Winner: George W. Bush. Kudos Ralphy Nader.
2006 Edition: Winner: Democrats. We showed those RINOs, though.

Voting third party or staying home is only a viable strategy for electing anyone remotely conservative if it’s the Democrats doing it.

Personally, I’d rather accept an imperfect candidate than fall on my own sword in the name of the candidate who is more like me but infinitely less likely to get elected.

Then again, I might just join you if they nominate Rudy. What the hell’s the difference? The guy used to run as a D, at least according to wikipedia. Being a hawk doesn’t make you a republican and it certainly doesn’t make you a conservative.

I’ll take the short-term pain…

Hollowpoint on August 16, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Nice to see someone answer something straight up.

I hope it is short term pain, and we ain’t eating worms.

Every candidate has his/her faults, obviously Mitt is way over the line (in your analysis). The problem with that is, we have seen by the posts, every candidate has skeletons in their closet. Every one who has made the number of decisions and public discourse that some of these candidates like Rudy and Mitt or McCain have made, will have made their share of gaffs, retreats, mis-statements, change of course, etc. Most of us, and fact few of us, will ever have to make that many public decisions, that effect so many lives. And be scrutinized in such detail.

Overall, Fred has shown to be a conservative (look at his voting record), Mitt a little less, but still (considering having to survive in a liberal rich state) a conservative, McCain, who knows probably the weakest as to policy, Newt, no doubt, plain conservative (don’t forget, even Reagan leaned towards giving illegal immigrants rights…no it was not amnesty). But Hillary or Obama, not even close to conservative in any way shape or form.

To use another analogy, a flood is coming, do you get in a leaking boat…or drown?

I would get in the boat, and patch the leak, or bail like hell…you would choose to drown, hope your family isn’t with you.

Which Democrat would you select over Mitt? Hillary or Obama.

right2bright on August 16, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Neither. I’ll either vote 3rd party or stay home. I realize that voting for someone other than the Republican nominee kinda-sorta has the effect of voting for the Democrat, but I’m not voting for someone I don’t support. Not this time.

I’ll take the short-term pain of seeing a Hillary in office over the long-term evolution of the Republican party into just another bunch of big government, pork loving politicians who happen to be against abortion. The country survived 8 years of Bill, it would survive the wounds inflicted by Hillary.

Just because I don’t want to eat a turd sandwich doesn’t mean I’m going to eat a handful of worms because they taste a little better.

Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 7:48 PM

You and I disagree about this one point…I think a weak Republican is better than any Democrat. If Mitt is selected, and I think he has some real weaknesses, he is still better than any of the Democrats.

Which Democrat would you select over Mitt? Hillary or Obama.

He did not say he supported the ammendment

I heard him say said he supports the republican platform and that being a part of the Republican platform. How is that not supporting the ammendment?

I don’t like to write anyone of our men out right now, it just makes it difficult if the one we attack ends up being our best choice to win.
We also have to look who can carry other Senators and Congressmen onto a victory. Who has the longest coattails.

right2bright on August 15, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Legitimate opinion, just one I no longer subscribe to after 8 years of Bush and a big spending Republican congress. My days of pulling the lever for whomever has an (R) next to their name are over, at least for the near future.

After all, one should base their decision on who beats democrats by supporting the man who has never faced one in a serious race. Fred Thompson doesn’t even know what a Democratic opponent is.
BKennedy on August 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Wrong- In his first Senate campaign, Fred was some 20 points behind his opponent, a popular TN Congressman. He ended up winning in a landslide.

Romney blew an early lead against Teddy. A tough opponent in a place like MA to be sure, but the fact remains. Romney lost one and won one. Currently his numbers aren’t good despite a campaign 2 years in the making and many millions (including millions of his own money) spent. In matchups against Hillary, he fares poorly. Furthermore, there’s the fact that many- particularly amongst Christian conservatives vital to Republicans- are reluctant to vote for a Mormon, unfair though that might be.

Add in his past and current positions (some of which changed completely when he decided to run 2 years ago) and he’s simply not someone I’ll vote for- not in the primaries, not in the general election.

Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 5:40 PM

I agree, but that was then, this is now. Like I said, you may read history but the voters don’t. You are one vote, there are thousands who vote on personality, charisma, and who is the “alpha” dog at the time of casting a vote.

I am not a Mitt fan, but he may prove to be the most electable…practically speaking. I would much prefer Newt, but he isn’t electable right now. Things tend to change as the campaign moves on. Look how Obama is flaming out, yet he may make a recovery, and Hillary may take a dive.
I don’t like to write anyone of our men out right now, it just makes it difficult if the one we attack ends up being our best choice to win.
We also have to look who can carry other Senators and Congressmen onto a victory. Who has the longest coattails.

You’re really reaching AP. I guess August is slow huh?

It’s unfortunate he couldn’t prove he could take down a top Democratic Senator- he blew an early lead in the polls to lose to Ted “Chivas Regal” Kennedy.

Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 5:40 PM

So tell me Hollowpoint, If Ted Kennedy is so easy to oust, why has he been in the Senate for over forty years?

I bet you could do it, right Hollowpoint?

I hate Uncle Ted with a passion, but he is so admired and so protected by the liberal establishment here he could campaign naked on Beacon Hill with nothing but a Crossing Guard Sash and a Stop sign and still win 60% of the vote.

But why let reality get in the way of Hollowpoint’s delusions? After all, one should base their decision on who beats democrats by supporting the man who has never faced one in a serious race. Fred Thompson doesn’t even know what a Democratic opponent is. Mitt Romney had to work with a legislature and a judiciary full of them for four years.

We can tell your serious about a candidate who can stop Democrats Hollowpoint. After all, technically Fred didn’t lose to a Democrat if he never had the guts to face any.

He has, however, lobbied for them.

But why bore you with that fact either.

C’mon, I am no big fan of Mitt’s history, but the one thing he proved last night is that he can take down a top democratic operative.

It’s unfortunate he couldn’t prove he could take down a top Democratic Senator- he blew an early lead in the polls to lose to Ted “Chivas Regal” Kennedy.

Actually, I think the discovery of a gene linked to homosexuality is the best chance for converting liberals. Next time you have the abortion argument with them, ask if they’d support a mother’s right to abort a fetus because it’s gay.

Dem science states that as long as any part of the baby is still in the cervix, that baby can be murdered by any means possible since it poses a threat and simply is not born yet. They have minions of sick, concentration camp doctors just waiting with ice picks and scissors.

Get the voting age down to -9 months with the clause that any Black American living in New Orleans, illegal alien or felon gets to cast a vote for the baby, and the entire disgrace of murdering infants is solved. In fact, there will be a baby boom with Liberals taking condoms away from kids.

Ya know, I try and try and try to like the guy…….but I just can’t help but see him as the GOP equivalent of John Kerry. Ugh.
EduardoOTI on August 15, 2007 at 4:27 PM

NOBODY liked John Kerry. The moonbats didn’t like him any more than we did. They picked him because he’s the sort of plastic-faced personality vacuum you’d expect some OTHER sucker to buy a used car from.

We need to try for the brass ring. Focus on who represents us the best, not on who will be least likely to offend the middle. That’s a trap. The BEST you can hope for from that is mediocrity – and you’re pretty likely to end up losing anyway.

Huckabee appears to be going for the “Christian is right” approach, and Thompson is taking the mutually exclusive federalist approach.

logis on August 15, 2007 at 4:58 PM

I’m not so sure the “federalist approach” is so exclusive. In a lot of cases, it’s a wink-nudge to conservatives that they can prohibit abortion in their own states if they want to. From a governing perspective, it’s fine, but from a firm pro-life position, it doesn’t make sense to me (although I’m not as firmly pro-life as many who populate this site.) Just like the pro-life “attrition strategy” described by BKennedy in an earlier comment on this thread, shoudn’t a firm pro-lifer be against abortion anywhere in the country, not just in their own state or among those who happen to agree with him?

Each position is defensible but they can’t happily co-exist: if you support a federal constitutional amendment to extend due process rights to fetuses then you’re obviously not willing to let each state decide for itself.
posted at 2:17 pm on August 15, 2007 by Allahpundit

Some adviser told Romney that “federalism” is a brand new buzzword that some of those weird conservative types are going nuts over all of a sudden. So, like learning a new “vocabulary builder” word-of-the-week, he started peppering his speeches with that word. Aside from Newt Gingrich and Fred Thomson, I honestly believe that no high-level politician in America understands what every reasonably intelligent fifth-grader should be required to know before moving up.

As for the Anti-Baby-Killing Amendment:

1. If we tried to cure every idiotic Supreme Court decision by Amendment, the Constitution would be 10,000 pages long by now – and infinitely more easily misinterpreted.

2. This is exactly the sort of “Christian heavy-handedness” that the liberal media have spent decades conditioning Americans to fear. Right or wrong, that sort of fear-mongering works; and giving liberal propagandists free ammunition doesn’t help anything. And

3. Of course Presidents don’t have any authority to impose Amendments; what Presidents do is pick Supreme Court Justices. The way to fix this problem is by having the having Constitutional convictions and STICKING WITH THEM. And as hopeless as a flip-flopper would be at getting a strict constructionist past Congress, trying to appoint an anti-abortion activist to the bench would be even worse.

As you pointed out, this type of Constitutional micro-management is exactly the OPPOSITE of federalism. Huckabee appears to be going for the “Christian is right” approach, and Thompson is taking the mutually exclusive federalist approach. Romney and all the other candidates are offering us yet another helping of Bush and Son’s brand of conservatism: defined as “whatever I personally happen to think works best today.”

After 12 years of that crap, I’m pretty much sick of bending over backwards to try to defend it in some sort of coherent manner. In the unlikely event that Huckabee’s crusade gains a LOT of ground, more power to him. I won’t be able to help, but that’s OK; those guys have enough energy for all of us.

Me? I’m waiting for Newt or Fred to throw his hat in. Frankly, I’m too damned fed up to support another “Bush Light” candidate. I just don’t have it in me. I suspect a lot of conservatives feel that way.

If the moderates end up co-opting the Republican Party again, then I suppose I’ll just have to live with whomever they pick. Hopefully, by the time Hillary leaves office, I’ll have recuperated enough to get involved again. But in the meantime, they’ll have to carry the load on their own.

Nor do I have any problem with the Federalist approach either; which probably is as much can be hoped for in the present politicial environment.

I support Federalism in general, but would not mind a constitutional amendment instructing those engaged in the murder of innocents to cease and desist. After all murder is murder.

Mark
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/

“Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

David Geffen – Former Clinton supporter and Hollywood mogul

Perhaps I was a bit too snarky; I apologize. However, I think it’s extremely important to use the right terminology in these kinds of discussions.

As for the actual discussion we’re having here, decisions such as Kelo and Roe are made as an interpretation of the Constitution in cases where the rights of two different parties are in conflict. We may not like the decisions, but they do fall under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch, since the Constitution itself does not outline the law in those cases explicitly. However, if the actual text of the Constitution is changed, as happens with an amendment, the courts cannot declare it unconstitutional; they can only interpret it, as far as that is possible, in future cases.