Religious right fracturing over Rudy?
posted at 8:02 pm on October 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Times seems to think so but they’re starting from a premise which I’m not sure is true — that religious voters ever were the “easy to command” monolith they’ve been cracked up to be.
If they were, they’re not anymore.
Evangelical Protestants make up about 26 percent of the population. But according to surveys in the new book “The Faith Factor” by John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, that pie can be sliced even further. Only 12 percent of the population are the evangelical Protestants Mr. Green calls “traditionalists,” the political and theological conservatives who make up the bedrock of the religious right. Almost an equal share (11 percent of the population) are evangelical “centrists” and about 3 percent are “modernists,” groups that are politically less predictable…
[N]ew leaders [like Rick Warren and Richard Cizik] are pushing evangelicals to expand their agenda beyond abortion and homosexuality, to include issues like poverty, AIDS and global warming. Like other Americans, evangelicals tell pollsters they care a great deal about the war in Iraq, health care, immigration and security. If evangelicals more and more vote like average Americans, it becomes increasingly complex for the candidates to calculate how to win them over.
I’ll take their word for it re: that boldface part, but, er…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
I, for one, welcome our new pro-choice, pro-amnesty, antiwar, anti-free speech, anti-conservative, anti-business, tax-hiking, anti-Republican overlords in 2008.
And I look forward to throwing them out in 2012 when the religious right wakes up and realizes that they’re better off with someone who doesn’t actively promote their agenda rather someone who actively opposes and seeks to eradicate it.
Good Lt on October 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Remember back in the day when Geraldine Ferraro told Walter Mondale “The poor don’t vote”? Well, many in the “religious right” don’t vote either. Let’s quit worrying about them, shall we?
Rational Thought on October 7, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Republicans need to dump the religious right anyways. Holding onto silly issues (creationism, etc) are just making the party look silly.
Your winning combo for republicans is:
small government, social libertarianism
The republicans stand for neither.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Good luck winning elections without us.
Better to look silly to people like yourself than to be wrong.
2Brave2Bscared on October 7, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I wouldn’t vote for Guliani if he were the GOP candidate. I can’t compromise my beliefs just to keep the White House.
A Dumb in office is a terrible thought, but worse is voting for someone whose beliefs conflict with mine.
madmonkphotog on October 7, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Republicans used to win elections through the power of small, non-intrusive, states right government. We might have gotten to see that, but Nixon ran in ‘60, Goldwater said something about using nukes for deforestation, and a trend was started of Republicans as being unlikeable amongst many Americans, until Reagan amalgamated the religious-then-centrists, and made them the religious right.
It’s always seemed like two ships passing in the night to me, though. You can’t both be small government and also police and legislate morality any more than you can be small government and police and legislate wealth.
Spc Steve on October 7, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Good, more Rudy bashing. It’s been like two minutes since I’ve heard any.
Hillary must be happy to know the religious right is going to make sure she’s elected.
Jim-Rose on October 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Exactly.
I’d be safe in saying that the vast majority of americans just want to be left alone by the federal government. Stay out of our lives – financially and personally.
Sounds like a winning platform to me. Standing for stupid things like creationism; gay marriage amendments, etc just reduces the party’s message and smacks of big, interfering government.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM
I hope that you and your “principles” enjoy the next 16 years of first Hillary, and then Obama running this country. Good work! There is a reason why the GOP is referred to as the stupid Party.
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Even if the “religious right” still stay with the GOP, it is still unlikely of keeping the White House.
terryannonline on October 7, 2007 at 8:38 PM
It has been interesting the past few months reading the posts at Hotair and lucianne.com and realizing that right wing ideologues can be just as dumb, sanctimonious and dangerous as left wing ideologues as well. People who believe in ideological purity and are as intolerant as their counterparts on the left, leave me cold. I admire Rudy’s refusal to pander to the yahoo brigades. By the way what did Ronnie Reagan, Richard E. Nixon Jerky Ford and George Doofus Bush do to end abortion besides appoint such brilliant judges as Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul George Ringo Stevens, David Souter to the Supreme Court? Could it be that (despite a general dislike of the procedure) there is no national consensus to make abortion illegal again? By the way Rudy was mayor of New York City and an Oklahoma type of conservative could not even get out of the batters box if he ran for office here. He certainly was no bleeding heart Leftie when he cracked down on street crime and the mafia. Would NYC have been better off if the GOP nominated a more doctrinaire Republican to run for Mayor such as George Marlin and watch 8 more years of David Dinkins type of left wing administrators ruin the city?
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Who cares? I have trouble telling the two political parties apart anyway.
EnochCain on October 7, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Exactly.
terryannonline on October 7, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Are you serious? There are huge differences.
terryannonline on October 7, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Whats the huge difference between Rudy and Hillary besides the war?
EnochCain on October 7, 2007 at 8:48 PM
If that were true, the libertarians wouldn’t need to compromise with social conservatives in order to be able to vote someone into power.
There is no Republican party without the religious right.
Though I disagree with the campaign against Rudy, the biggest reason people went out to vote before 9/11 was abortion.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 8:51 PM
As much as I hate to see this happen, I had a feeling it would eventually. The values of being hawkish on foreign policy, supporting lower taxes, and pushing less nanny state government just aren’t enough to hold the overall conservative movement together in the face of division on major social con issues like abortion and gay marriage. It was only possible during the Reagan and Bush years because they were both reasonably traditional and pro-life in outlook. But with a candidate like Rudy, I’m sorry to say, that dog don’t hunt.
The pragmatic view of “Rudy beats Hillary” can’t trump principle for many people, myself included. It’s better to be a Wilberforce and campaign for the long haul on principle than to compromise in the short term for dubious gain.
Jared White on October 7, 2007 at 8:53 PM
We’ll see how you feel when the first Supreme Court replacements come up during the Democrat administration.
Check back with us.
Good Lt on October 7, 2007 at 8:54 PM
That’s a fairly large difference.
Besides, don’t forget HillaryCare.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 8:55 PM
The corollary is that there’s no religious right without the Republican party – in Washington. If a Democrat wins without the consent of the religious right, what do they care?
Unless you want to split off and form your own “religious right” political party. Good luck holding or getting near national office with that.
Good Lt on October 7, 2007 at 8:56 PM
They would tax differently (one will tax more…guess which one?). Fund government programs. Hillary wants “universal” health care. And I’m sure they have differences in plenty of other issues.
terryannonline on October 7, 2007 at 8:57 PM
libertarians have selfishly focused on issues like drug legalization and are unwilling to take baby steps to their small government end game. That’s their problem. Selfishness and not seeing the big picture. It’s nothing to do with values. A little bit of bad marketing/candidates too.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Those who wonder what the difference is between Rudi and Hillary just have not been paying attention. Hillary is like those Rudi put in jail during his time in public service. The Clintons are a criminal enterprise that once again want to infest the White House. Republicans who do not vote because of some issue with the Republican nominee are like traitors to this nation. You are abandoning us to the enemy. Don’t let you be the reason I have to watch a criminal take the oath of office January 2009.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 7, 2007 at 8:58 PM
I disagree. The Republican party got along just fine prior to 1980, when Reagan actively courted Falwell, Robertson, and others, saying he would seek to further their moral agenda. Whether it helped or hurt the Republican party to so lean on the crutch that the religious right has become is the question at work here. Social libertarianism was a staple of the GOP, and their move toward actively reining in social liberties created the void that spawned the Libertarian party. But people who remember Goldwater remember that the Republican party was alive and well before they met the religious right.
Spc Steve on October 7, 2007 at 8:59 PM
That’s the exact opposite of my point. You seem to have misunderstood me. I’m simply saying that the libertarians can’t win with their own party and should quit complaining about the religious right.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 8:59 PM
I haven’t forgotten Goldwater, but there’s a reason that he didn’t become president and Reagan did.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:00 PM
That’s kinda the point though, isn’t it? Those who aren’t being selfish understand the need to compromise and side with social cons. Those who don’t can’t elect their candidates.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:02 PM
You don’t think evangelicals were there in the Republican party in that day in similar proportions to today? It may have predated the political awakening among evangelicals, but I don’t think that awakening led to a great sweep of evangelicals into the party. I’m not a GOP party historian, but that’s my intuitive sense.
TexasDan on October 7, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Surely you jest.
If not, try this for openers: “Why There is a Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America” in Policy Review, by John Fonte, Hoover Institution.
petefrt on October 7, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Compromise is a two way street, though. Republicans aren’t giving up any (sensible) views and helping get a larger tent by getting people who may not naturally support them over single – silly – social issues.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Hey guys how about we just let the Dems take this one. Then the American public will be reminded why they ever voted Republican in the 80s, 2000, and 2004.
terryannonline on October 7, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Views on crime, views on taxation, views on terrorism, views on appointing Federal judges (often more important than Supreme Court judges, views on who would be a Sec. of State (Rudy would support someone like John Bolton, Hillary someone like Colin Powell, Clueless Condi Rice or Madeline Albright), can you imagine Rudy supporting Dubai running America’s ports?
Hillary is a socialist Rudy decidedly is not. I wish all you Rudy bashers could have lived in pre-Rudy NYC and then experienced the changed when Rudy took over. Pre-Rudy the philosophy was that NYC was ungovernable, Rudy said “no, NYC is not ungovernable, it’s just not being governed.” Yes Rudy has his faults but who the **** does not? Rudy has a temper but so does Bill Clinton. You know something? It would be refreshing for a change to see a Republican with a bit of a temper instead of the pacifist “love thy neighbor” approach of the current spineless occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who never gets angry unless it is at people who questioned his amnesty program or questioned the wisdom of nominating Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS or questioned whether is is wise to let the nation of Dubai be in control of our seaports. Ideologues make me sick and in many ways the coming defeat we likely will suffer next year will be our fault.
P.A. – wouldn’t be nice if one GOP President would have the testicles to say “Being lectured on governmental morality by the likes of the senior senator from Massachusetts is akin to be lectured on the sanctity of marriage by Henry VIII.”
Instead the Doofus in chief and his A.G. name the Justice Department’s building after a political hatchet man (and incompetent A.G.) Robert F. Kennedy. Of course that very same day RFK’s daughter goes trashing Bush and Ashcroft. Beautiful. Go reach out some more to your “distnguished colleagues” from across the aisle as Miss Lindsey Graham and John McCain advocates.
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 9:10 PM
You mean if the GOP loses in 2008, they’ll blame Christians rather than their lack of conservatism, spineless message, and imperial hubris? ALERT THE MEDIA!
And some of you people wonder why anyone would abandon the Republican party.
Darin on October 7, 2007 at 9:12 PM
I’m not saying that it isn’t. We need you just as much as you need us.
I’m only saying that going the libertarian route won’t do the party any favors. Limited government and spending cuts are vital to revitalizing the party, but a quick look at national polls on those “silly” issues will prove that the social libertarians won’t bring anyone out to vote.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:13 PM
The problem with that is that the Democratic base is increasing faster than the GOP base.
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 9:13 PM
If the stakes weren’t so high, I’d be all for it. worked in 1992.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Dobson is making the right moves. If Rudy comes up short of the nomination, Dobson will look like a king-maker. If Rudy gets the nod, Dobson should cut a deal to extract as much as he can from Rudy. If you care about abortion and other social issues, you need to consider that 6 of the 9 justices are over 68. By the end of a possible 8 years of Hillary they would all be over 76 and, from and actuary standpoint, very possibly dead.
If you believe that Hillary would appoint different judges then Rudy, I don’t know how one could claim to be anti-abortion and give Hillary a shot at appointing possibly a majority of the court.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 9:14 PM
“..campaign for the long haul.” It’s apt to be a very long haul with irreparable damage done to the very issues the religious right holds most dear plus other things that I hold dear. It’s a forlorn hope to think that Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned or that the present Dem candidates will ultimately oppose same sex marriage. So—I am given no choice but to vote MY pleasure, for MY reasons and if that includes Rudy, so be it.
jeanie on October 7, 2007 at 9:14 PM
That’s likely because we’ve been in power so long. The young voters grew up with a Republican congress and only 8 years of a Democrat president, a man who had power during an economic boon this country hasn’t seen in years.
With a Democrat in power, the illusion could fade, especially if we’re attacked again.
Though I agree with lorien, the stakes are too high to do that to our country.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Having 1/2 of republican candidates saying they don’t believe in evolution isn’t helping either.
Imagine how many votes could theoretically be nabbed if we had a platform of:
so, libertarians, want drugs legalized? Help us pass a law that says drug tests for all welfare/jobless benefits (if they pass, no benefits).
Two way street. Even if you or I don’t like legalized drugs, putting them on the spot to agree with quid pro quo, I think puts a lot more people in the conversation – on the right side of the court.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Conservatives know how to make compromises just like all of the GOP’s other constituent groups. My problem with Giuliani is that I’m being asked to compromise so much that it really forces me to ask whether winning is worth the compromise. It seems to me the entire reason Giuliani is as popular as he is stems from this notion of “electability” and not because of anything intrinsic about the candidate. I respect Giuliani for his performance on and after 9/11 and for generally cleaning up NYC, but the fact is that he is a RINO. He’s against the majority of the party on abortion, gay marriage, immigration, judges, etc.
Remember – Bush was the “most electable candidate” in 2000, and he thanked us with profligate spending, tolerating corruption and insider dealing (”I only vetoed 2 bills in 7 years in the white house”) among GOP congressional ranks, shamnesty plans, and an arguable lack of effective leadership in Iraq. His known infirmities really came back to bite the party (and the country) in the butt; on the other hand, his strengths (perseverence and his positions on taxes and judges) really came in handy.
At the end of the day, sometimes it’s better to lose in 2008 to Hillary and fight back in 2012 than to support another “electable candidate” that is going to set you back long term. I don’t know where I come out on whether backing Giuliani is “worth it,” but people need to understand this is a very serious debate and one the party needs to have. It’s also a shame that Fred Thompson isn’t a serious candidate and that Mitt Romney wasn’t such an obvious flip-flopper. Sigh.
Outlander on October 7, 2007 at 9:19 PM
To all of you who think you can sit by, see Hillary get elected, stand on principle and really show those liberal Republicans:
That’s optimism for ya. If Hillary gets control there may not be a 2012. As a parent of a 13 year old, that very much concerns me.
That is a false analogy. “Morality” is not being “policed” any more now than it was at any other time in our Nation’s history. As for “legislating wealth” vis a vis “the police” – wtf are you talking about????
What bothers and puzzles me is that Bush did all he could do, which was put Alito and Roberts on the bench, yet the Social Cons are still grumbling. I don’t think there is a realistic perception of what can be accomplished, particularly since we handed Congress over to the Dems.
Generally speaking I think that hard core social conservatives are frustrated in part because 9/11 took the spotlight off their issues. However, it is abject foolishness to “stand on principle” and hand the election over to Hillary as payback to the Republican Party.
That does not mean that Rudy has to be the candidate. But if he is, I for one will be very angry with my fellow Republicans if they refuse to vote for him just because he isn’t exactly what they want as a President.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 9:19 PM
That’s right Darin, they are already blaming Christians for losing. It’s not their fault, it’s the evil Christians fault that the ‘messiah’ Rudy didn’t get elected. After all, Rudy even brought down the mafia didn’t he?
Sounds more Don King the more I hear about this super Rudy ‘messiah’ guy.
And yes, the problem I have with Rudy has less to do with his stance on abortion, and more to do with the fact that I can’t tell the difference between him and Hillary.
ThackerAgency on October 7, 2007 at 9:21 PM
True enough. But also the Dems, as the change agents, have the benefit of the ratchet effect against those seeking to preserve the present value. Once they make changes, we can seldom roll changes back more than partially.
To make it worse, Hillary is intent on transforming this country in ways that cast these changes in concrete.
petefrt on October 7, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I have never voted against my principles as a means of securing power for a particular party and I won’t this time. If a Dem was representing my viewpoints then I would vote for a dem. The past few years have seen the repubs being on my side more or less but I never vote the party line for the sake of the party. I vote solely on the issues.
Unfortunately this usually means merely voting for the lesser evil.
Given the choice between Guliani and Hilary I would vote for Guliani but only because he would be the lesser evil. Not because he is the best person to represent me. The problem is how sucky our choices are.
Guardian on October 7, 2007 at 9:23 PM
If the Republican Party would get off their tails and craft a message and lay out a direction for the Party, maybe they could accommodate everyone. The Religious Right has an agenda, certainly – but rather than “legislating morality” (a dubious term to me), their aims are better realized by pursuing the model of government that the framers set up. It would return more power to them because they would eventually see fewer state issues getting overuled by liberal Judges.
But they have delivered for the Party by voting faithfully. Remember the Dems trying to figure out how to court the Christians after the ‘04 defeat? They have earned the right to make demands, if any group has within a Party. But I think a third party is way off the mark and will only result in thirty or more years of liberal control. I don’t think we have thirty years more to spare to that.
Dork B. on October 7, 2007 at 9:24 PM
This is actually a very simplistic view of this argument. You do realize that the ‘war on drugs’ is actually a ‘war on Americans’. I get sick to death of hearing about a cop killed in a pre-dawn raid over a couple of pounds of marijuana. They shouldn’t have to worry about that stuff and it is a tragedy.
ALSO, if you want to get more REVENUE, legalize and TAX drugs. Drug cartels don’t get rich because nobody is willing to pay for these drugs. Instead of paying for this war that will never be won, we should save that money, and tax the hell out of drugs for more revenue. That puts the drug cartels out of business, increases tax revenue, and allows us to control the distribution of these drugs. It also allows us to provide treatment and education for those on drugs.
The drug legalization idea is long overdue for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which is that it isn’t working and it is making a lot of bad people very wealthy.
ThackerAgency on October 7, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Buy Danish
You are a beacon of reason and sanity.
As for the Rudy haters – wait until the first Socialist puts her hand on the Bible in Jan. 2009 and her husband is back in the White House advising her on national security. In a sense I almost look forward to that (just to watch the yahoos groan) except me and millions will be paying the consequences and if we think that it will only be a 4 year blip and the GOP will win in 2012 (and also regain congress) think again. We cannot concede the electoral votes of NY, Pa, Ct, NJ off the bat every election.
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 9:26 PM
My personal pet-peeves and main issues are the 2nd amendment and illegal immigration.
Frankly who would you suggest I vote for?…
Both Rudy and Hillary will go against those.
For me it is a good time to tell the republician party to take a hike and maybe they will learn that they meed to get back to their roots come 2012.
They got “thumped” in 2006, did not learn their lesson with this years amnesty bill perhaps a 2008 loss will “learn them”
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 9:27 PM
And let us not forget that unlike Bush and the GOP, the MSM, Hollywood, academia i.e. what passes for “culture” these days – will be cheering the socialism on. Does anyone here at Hotair think that Hillary will deal forcefully with Iran and Hamas?
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 9:29 PM
That’s true as far as abortion is considered, but it’s not as though Bush has been the prefect president. Calling his base racist over the amnesty debate didn’t help things.
Maybe so, but there is danger in going into something like that where so many people have such passionate opinions. Take your example, there are many people who wouldn’t appreciate your approach simply because of their opinions on drug legalization. We’d likely lose more people than we’d gain.
And you really seem to have some issue about creationism. You’ve said again and again that the people don’t want government interference. Why should it be any different when it comes to a belief in how the world was created?
And honestly, where’s the benefit in teaching kids a theory of how the world was created in the first place? It didn’t help me figure out biology and yet somehow its become this huge controversial topic ever since some substitute teacher pulled a stunt to get a court case going.
The theory is inconsequential. Even many who agree with it aren’t convinced that it takes anything away from a belief of a supernatural being. My own high school teacher told us she believes God started the whole process. In fact, it’s almost ironic that she was able to bring God into the classroom during a conversation about something which was supposed to keep science from talking about God.
You keep talking about silly issues, but caring about who does and who does not believe in evolution is about the silliest thing a person could care about.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:31 PM
No one :/ I think illegal immigration is a huge issue. I think the 2nd amendement fight has already been won, though. Neither party works for me for the illegal issue. And i’m not so sure the democrats are serious about gun control either.
Your argument also gets leftists on board too, doesnt it. So, in 2 posts we’ve gotten leftists and libertarians on board of a conservative platform (personal responsibility) to get what they both want (libertarians wanna get high; libs want regulation). There ya go.
I’m a great strategist :D
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I agree. But face it. Having your presidential candidate stand up there and say god made us in 6 days while ignoring all scientific data to the contrary – is just as silly isnt it?
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Where’s Slublog?
daveintexas on October 7, 2007 at 9:33 PM
I’m just using it as an example. I’ve turned against creationism and I don’t care if people believe in it. I just chose it cuz it popped in my head real quick as a silly moment in a recent debate.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Hey just vote your heart, head, conscience … whatever you listen to. May the best team win.
As it stands I’m voting Rudy, if someone better emerges thats great. If someone else wants to nominate a Tancredo or Keyes or whoever, hey good luck with that.
Dash on October 7, 2007 at 9:35 PM
It is frustrating beyond belief that people don’t see that, or worse, claim there is no difference between Hillary and Rudy.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:18 PM
That is a phony issue and for some strange reason only Republicans get asked that inappropriate and largely irrelevant question. I believe in the concept of evolution to a point, but I don’t believe in the Darwininac’s version of it, and I am not a Fundamentalist “creationist” Christian. There are a lot of holes in what is peddled as evolution “science” just as there are huge holes in “global warming” theory.
That’s a bit simplistic. Do you think that we are only concerned with the drug habits of those on welfare or jobless? What about our kids? Moreover, people who are laid off from work aren’t laid off because of drug use.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Reagan was no “centrist” he was far right, just the way the Republican conservative base likes their candidates.
Maxx on October 7, 2007 at 9:37 PM
First off, one thing we learned from prohibition is that making something legal is really a one way street. Another thing is that making something illegal really does dramatically reduce the number of people who consume it.
Besides which, growing pot is insanely easy. If we legalize it and tax it to death the way we’re doing now with cigarettes, there’s no incentive for people to switch their drug provider from a dealer to a gas station.
I agree that cops should have better things to do than bust pot dealers, but I’m not convinced that they shouldn’t be busting dealers in general. As a society, we’re better off without a bunch of people on coke and heroin. Heck, we’re even better off without a bunch of people on pot.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:39 PM
First off it was the GOP Establishment that tabbed Bush back in 2000. Also you neglected Bush’s greatest fault – a loyalty to incompetent “friends” of his – Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, George Tenet, Norm Minetta, Michael Chertoff, Mel Martinez, – (even Donald Rumsfeld hung around long enough to do damage to Bush) that was the ruin of his 2nd term. If we give up the W.H. next year it will be a long time until we get it back Defeatism is defeatism. Why not victory? By the way since you are so sanguine about a Hillary victory next year don’t complain when the Bush tax cuts are restored.
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I am a non-religious social libertarian who believes that jihad is the defining issue of our day. You might think I would be a true supporter of Rudy, but I cant see how. I mean he never addresses jihad except to talk about killing islamists in some far away place. in fact, that is what the majority of the candidates seem to think that fighting jihad is. Unfortuately, it is about restricting who we let into this country, enforcing our borders, and defining who we are culturally and stop making allowances for a religious-political-social movement in this country.
Give me a candidate who undertands the true nature of jihad, and they will get my vote for president.
paulsur on October 7, 2007 at 9:40 PM
I think it’s silly that they’re being asked that in a debate.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I agree that evolution isn’t perfect. But its heading away from creation – agree with that, at least? Global warming is different entirely. Don’t conflate that with evolution.
I didnt say they were. I’m simply saying that in order to receive any sort of federal/state benefits. If you test positive, you are denied benefits. Seems like a simple requirement to me, no?
I’m not disagreeing. I’m just saying that to get to pure small government platform, I don’t care if you are smokin’ pot if you can keep a job and fend for yourself. However, if you lose your job and test positive for drugs – no benefits for you. You made your bed; time to lie in it.
What about parents?
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:42 PM
You’re worried about social cons scooting based on their values, and the compromise solution is to bring legalized drugs into the GOP platform?
Not by any chance using said substances while commenting?
TexasDan on October 7, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Certainly. I’ve known some who smoked. As far as drugs go, I’d say pot is minor, but it made me a little sick to see them smoke in front of their kids.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Heh. I’m totally against legalization, as I said. I’m just saying – by offering solutions to libertarian problems that involve conservative principles is a good way to go.
We could just as easily use other examples. I don’t care. Just making the point.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I don’t see Romney as a “flip flopper”. I tend to see him as a man who feels, and rightly so, that he can change his mind. If one wishes to put a “flip flop” spin on that, ok, but I don’t and won’t. I like a lot of Romney’s ideas, I also like a lot of Rudy’s. I’m weary of “principles” and “party bases” and the moral high ground. From now on I’m going to look at both men from the point of view of who I think will be best for the country and who can pull it together. Period!
jeanie on October 7, 2007 at 9:45 PM
It’s interesting to me that the “religious right” won’t vote for Rudy, but they’d allow Mrs. Clinton (or other democrat) to win and therefore imperil their own freedom to worship Jesus as opposed to mohammed once the terrorists keep striking us once a democrat wins and forcing Mrs. Clinton (or other democrat) to capitulate and hand over our country to them. Believe me..that’s exactly what would happen.
SouthernGent on October 7, 2007 at 9:46 PM
That so doesn’t answer the question.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:46 PM
The problem with evolutionists is that they ignore all the scientific evidence that PROVES evolution did NOT happen the way the schools are teaching it.
They say, oh well we’ll discover a reason that this happened at some point in the future. The leap of logic that one has to make to accept the ’scientific’ data concerning evolution is beyond ridiculous. There are MANY things which COULD NOT HAVE evolved. That does not mean we were Created either, but you are ridiculous to think evolution is ‘fact’.
ThackerAgency on October 7, 2007 at 9:47 PM
What are the odds that in 2012 or 2016 after Hillary finishes her first or 2nd term as POTUS – the GOP Country Club Establishment (which reminds me of what the Duke of Wellington said about the Bourbon Kings of France – “They learn nothing and forget everything”) tries to tab Jeb Bush as the nominee another pseudo Country Club Republican who also wants to be El Presidente?
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Hopefully she’d only get 4 years, and I doubt that would be enough time for something that drastic; however, I agree that they’re being insane. I hope they’re only bluffing.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:48 PM
\
Of course it does. I’ve never done drugs. The question is a cheap way to marginalize a legitimate point.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Legalization of drugs is a conservative issue in that it is FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. Rather than WASTE money and court time and jail space on victimless crime, we could tax the crap out of it, use the tax money to educate, rehabilitate, and regulate the use of drugs.
Legalization would take money out of the hands of BAD PEOPLE. Legalization is actually a conservative issue, but the ‘religious right’ would be against it. Too bad.
ThackerAgency on October 7, 2007 at 9:50 PM
The religious right isn’t demanding a fundementalist president who believes in a six-day Creation. It’s a more serious topic in that we see an urgency in the Abortion issue for obvious reasons.
Rudy needs to view this as an opportunity to reassure the religius right and go on record detailing how he would select his judges, what he would veto, etc. And make the argument for returning the Abortion issue to the State Legislature where it belongs. So he needs to go on record regarding Roe – and if he deviated from that once elected, raise holy hell – hit im in those approval ratings.
That’s choice A.
B would be handing it to Hilllary by voting third party.
C. would be running Mitt, I guess. But he needs to stay off of Youtube.
Dork B. on October 7, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Fixed it. If Billy Jeff was re-elected despite all the scandals, including Chinagate, what makes people think that Hillary would be one term President?
What happens if she gets 8 years? Can we trust her to fight the war against Islamofascism or can we look forward to eternal Dhimmitude? The far left will be telling her what to do, and even if one were to be foolish enough to believe that she would be a staunch advocate against terrorism, think about who she’d be handing out preferential visas and citizenship to. Think Sharia creeping like Kudzu.
Very true, but I was responding to your assertion that it was the issue of abortion that got Bush elected.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 9:53 PM
I think if it were legalized, people would realize what a bad idea it was as they are currently doing in Amsterdam. So you’d actually have a win-win for the conservative side.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 9:53 PM
I was joking. Though in all sincerity, I think the best that can come from that is decriminalizing it.
I completely disagree with you, but you’re simply repeating yourself which makes me think this is something you’re too passionate about to debate properly, so I’m just going to leave it at that for now.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Well put Thacker. It is frustrating to pay hundreds of billions in tax dollars since the 80’s only to see drug prices plummet. I’d rather the police focus on terrorists and borders than on drugs, and to use the prison space to keep violent offenders in for longer terms.
I also agree with the original post that it would be stupid to make a candidate pledge to legalize drugs, since he’d be crushed by his opponents. Somethings are better handled in a more subtle manner, hence Rudy’s “judges like Alito & Roberts” promise (wink, wink, nod, nod).
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 9:54 PM
yeah, I’m only repeating because there is so much opposition and now that it’s out there, I’m making my case. I actually wrote a letter to the editor of my college paper in the early 90’s about the economic benefit of legalization. I’m defensive here because I don’t normally talk about it, but here’s some more data (sorry to be off topic)
This total was estimated by the U.S. government’s cost report on drug control to be roughly $12 billion in 2005. Additionally, in a separate report, the U.S. government reports that the cost of incarcerating drug law offenders was $30.1 billion — $9.1 billion for police protection, $4.5 billion for legal adjudication, and $11.0 billion for state and federal corrections. In total, roughly $45.5 billion was spent in 2005 for these factors.
The War on Drugs cost the taxpayer 45 billion dollars in 2005. that would expand the SCHIP program 9 times over what was just vetoed for perspective.
ThackerAgency on October 7, 2007 at 9:59 PM
I’m sure it is what got him elected. I’m just not convinced it was enough to keep his base happy after he became president.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Lets see, Rudy anti gun, check. Good luck losing the NRA vote.
Rudy pro illegal immigration, check.
Rudy pro abortion, check. Good luck losing the religion vote.
Rudy pro gay marriage, check. See last point.
Rudy’s record as mayor and appointing judges? Majority liberal.
Yeah, ignore the record and believe the words.
Those that disagree with most of you posters are denigrated on a personal level in the grand traditions of the Kos Kids.
The proof is in the posts.
When the Republicans lose you can blame the religious.
I, for one wear that label proudly and would never vote for a pro abortionist.
Let the denigration continue in 3..2..1
rockdalian on October 7, 2007 at 10:03 PM
FeralCat on October 7, 2007 at 10:05 PM
No, I don’t fully agree. It depends on how you look at “creation”. How long is a “day” Did it happens in 6 days or 6 million years? As an aside, as my very funny child said on my birthday card this year: If this were in dog years, you’d be dead.
I assume you mean that it is up to parents to control their children, but there are limits to what we can do. My kid is very anti-drug now, but what happens when he gets to college where he isn’t even allowed to have a beer until he’s 21? If drugs are as available as candy it is just one more temptation that we and they don’t need.
I hope you’ll move Mitt up to the B position at least!
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 10:06 PM
At 21, he’s old enough to make his own decisions, isnt he? That’s my entire point. It’s not government’s job to be a parent. Imagine how many extra votes we’d get from young people (!) if we advocated a “leave me alone government” social platform. democrats would be a dead party.
I used to make this argument. The word in the original text is “yom” – which can mean day, 1/2 day or indefinite period of time. Believe me that shuts up most uninformed evolutionists; but there is so much more than that.
Here’s what “scared” me straight and turning against creation. And, oddly, 9/11 truthers helped me out:
Read the debates here, between evolutionists and creationists:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html
creationists use the exact same dodge/weave and issue avoidance that 9/11 truthers use. It’s stunning and made me reconsider.
I’d also watch this movie:
http://www.sho.com/site/schedules/product_page.do?episodeid=129643&seriesid=0
And turn off your beliefs (evolution or creation) and just listen to either side explain themselves. See what you think afterwards.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 10:13 PM
It is entirely possible, if she thinks it will be to her benefit to do so.
That is the problem. She will do what ever she thinks will bring her the most benefit. What is in the best interest of the United States is of no consequence.
rockhauler on October 7, 2007 at 10:14 PM
You are talking about 2 different policies here, one is the government making drugs illegal, the other is a private company saying we dont hire people that use drugs.
When I was in the military, of course I was subject to drug tests, sad thing is during my time the USAF prosecuated 7 members of my squadron for using illegal drugs.
How stupid is that? My friends were so stupid that one night they went to a party, smoked some dope, and lost their jobs because of it.
As you said they made their bed.
However today even Home Depot requires its employees to take a drug test prior to getting hired.
Even as a consultant, I will have to take a drug test sometime this week before I start work at one of the largest financial institutions in the world. (Thats fine I am not worried about it).
I also had to take a drug test for my life insurance policy that I took out 6 months ago.
So their you have it…
My friends today not get a job at Home Depot (assuming they are still using)
They could not get a job at a large financial institution.
They may not be able to get life insurance.
With their court martial/discharge they may be lucky to get a job anywhere assuming their history is known by a perspective employer.
Who do you think is going to end up supporting them later on in life now that the deck is stacked against them (assuming they still use drugs?)
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 10:14 PM
I’ll say this. It is a little easier to get drugs than it is to get alcohol for those who are under 21.
However, I was always able to get alcohol if I wanted it before I turned 21.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I think it helped but there was more to it than that. Why did we lose Congress? Not over abortion.
He has done some great things, and he started off as with so much potential. He has been great on fiscal policy and the War on Terror (although is political-correctness a la Karen Hughes is maddening) his Social Security reform ideas were great, his judicial choices (forgetting about Harriet Miers) have been stellar, et cetera. It really comes down to spending and immigration, and at least it can be said that his motives were probably pure.
Indeed, there should be a lesson there for us – Don’t fall down on your swords.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Yep I turned 18 and 21 on the same night.
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 10:18 PM
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 10:21 PM
My question is, are they willing to vote for Mitt although they teach apologetics against mormonism?
ackrite55 on October 7, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Interesting comments, all.
I just want to reiterate for those who may be worried about “comprimising” their social agenda by backing a candidate that can win.
If a Democrat is elected to the WH, and the Congress stays Dem, YOUR VALUES WILL BE COMPROMISED FOR YOU, whether you want them to be or not. There is far less a chance of that happening with someone who tacks more to your side on a variety of issues.
That, and the Supreme Court. Want a few more Ginsburgs? Then shun the GOP as you will.
Just sayin.’ I’m not ecstatic about the field either.
It’s the same as 2006. You get a choice between milktoast/kinda OK suck and socialist/leftist suck. And if you let socialist suck win, then you get to explain how a socialist in the WH and the socialist Congress is good for America, because Rudy was pro-choice.
What do you do, Jack? What do you do?
Good Lt on October 7, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Right, and the reason is that large numbers of Democrats voted for Reagan. Like it or not, to win in ‘08 the Repubs are going to need a few folks to cross party lines, and with Hillary as their candidate a whole bunch of them are looking for a reason — any reason — to do just that. The best strategy is to pick a candidate who will allow the Repubs to swap out the evangelical vote for cross-over Dem votes. The DNC gets this. The NYT gets this. The MSM gets this. Hillary gets this. Why in the hell don’t you people get this? Oh, that’s right, you’re all wrapped up in your holy principles. Well your principles and $150 will get me a late-term abortion in any city in this nation once Hillary’s elected.
Rational Thought on October 7, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Excuse Me?
While he did bring us out of a recession, and managed the economy well, his out of control spending was horrible and one of the main reasons why 2006 was a huge loss.
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Instapundit made a great point a few months back on his site. It was something like this:
Democrats may -want- a big socialist government but the average american does not want to pay higher taxes to finance it. So unless the populace decides they suddenly want to burden themselves with higher taxes, it cannot happen. And there has never been a presidential candidate who promised “hell yeah, im raising your taxes” and has gotten elected.
clinton did promise a cut in 1992, but he broke his promise and got tore apart in 1994.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 10:26 PM
And even RWR couldn’t undo the Great Society entitlements that LBJ pushed through following the mandate he received from his landslide victory over Goldwater. Elections matter and before we got RWR we had to live through LBJ, Watergate and Carter.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I’m in my early 20s and this would be incredibly successful in my age group, I rail against Nanny Staters constantly, as do others, we see the gov’t doing its damnedest to suck every ounce of joy out of life at every turn, and its beginning to chafe.
That’s why I’m not keen the current field, particularly Rudy got an authoritarian streak, Mitt’s less authoritarian, more suburbanite “won’t someone pleeeeeease think of the children” douche vibe…blech. That’s why I’m marginally in Fred’s camp, he seems like he just wants to enjoy life, and he gets that other people do to, I’m just worried he ain’t gonna bring an A game and play to win.
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 10:29 PM
I’m more worried that we have seen Fred’s A game. :/
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Yeah…s’kinda what I’m worried about.
We’re in big trouble in 08.
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »