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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Good to hear from the young folks. I recall that I was young once too. Having more of a libertarian streak in the Republican party could be a way of expanding the base. “Live Free or Die” is a more natural message for Republicans than for the big gov Dems. Finding issues that don’t clash to dramatically with the social conservatives is a challenge.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 10:34 PM
The GOP needs to seriously abandon some of the “issues” we have been so focused on. The current “republican” party is so far gone from what the traditional republican message has been throughout history.
Smaller government – Somehow spending is at an all time high
Protect the borders – Bush is a worthless stooge and wants an open border
Non-interventionism – We are in EVERYONE’S business, overseas and at home.
And when someone comes along who wants to fix these issues, he is referred to as a nut on this site. The message that Ron Paul puts forward is both simple and truly republican. This thing the republican party has evolved into, where the government is spying on its citizens, where we are at war overseas, spending over a TRILLION dollars of MY and YOUR money overseas when we have SERIOUS problems here at home which need to be solved, where the border is wide open and no one wants it fixes, its a travesty. Unless a TRUE republican is up as a nominee in 2008, republicans will NOT be getting my vote. I would rather vote for a democrat in democrats clothing than a democrat in republicans clothing.
muyoso on October 7, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Very true however you are missing one thing.
The reason why Republicans lost in 2006 is because they were “milktoast/kinda ok/suck”, and the 2007 amnesty bill was even more “suck”.
Until they learn that when the liberal pendulum swings left , they should not swing left as well, then maybe I will vote for them.
Regardless it is a loose/loose for me.
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Mall guards are better than marines, ron paul?
Paul would be great if he had a single clue about foreign policy. Till then, he proves that a little knowledge is dangerous. And he has very little knowledge.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Lorien, do you think he would wait until he was 21 if it was like getting a cup of coffee at Starbucks? The longer kids go without doing drugs the greater the chance that they won’t do them later. These kids are bombarded with enough thanks to “popular culture” they don’t need super easy access to drugs too.
I am certainly not willing to use my kid as a guinea pig in an experiment to get more votes, and think it would be very foolish to get in a contest with the Dems to see who could be the most “liberal” (in the libertarian sense). I can just imagine the oneupmanship that would follow :)
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Heh, its a RonPaul supporter. Look, Ron’s a nut, I like some of his message on smaller gov’t, I just wish it was coming from someone who wasn’t a friggin’ loon. Border too, I’m not keen on undermining US sovereignty, again, Paul’s crazy. Beyond that, the wackiness with the gold standard and fiat money weirds me out too. Not to mention the fixation on conspiracy theory. Oh, and his supporters are obnoxious as hell.
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 10:45 PM
@lorien1973 on October 7, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Did you listen to his comments? He is against the fact that we are in a war for pretty much no reason. Also, he was simply saying that simply being over there is stirring up a lot more hatred and causing a lot more deaths than if we weren’t over there. These are fairly simple and seemingly true statements.
As for why I would vote for him, I dont look for stupid comments as a reason why I wouldnt vote for a guy. I look for a record of accomplishments. He has never voted for a tax increase, he is VERY pro second amendment, he is anti Iraq war, he is anti spending so much on foreign aid and giving billions of dollars to Isreal which they surely dont need anymore. Pretty fair to say he is the most conservative candidate out there right now, and he certainly appeals to younger voters like myself who are looking for a candidate with some common sense.
muyoso on October 7, 2007 at 10:45 PM
The problem with libertarian theory is that if you start to go that direction you have to go all the way.
Yes, lets legalize all drugs. But who pays for the havoc the users will wreak on society? Until personal responsibility is the rule and not the exception, libertarian beliefs, for the most part, are pipe dreams.
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 10:46 PM
@Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 10:45 PM
So you like his policies and everything he has done, but you are going to not support him because you feel as though he is a nut for what reason? For something he said? For something he has done? For his supporters?
I dont want to be the Ron Paul guy here, but I seriously dont understand why people who claim to be republicans despise him so much, as he is by far the most republican in every sense of the label, other than if you claim a republican is someone like George Bush.
muyoso on October 7, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Not only is Ron Paul crazy, he is ignorant AND stupid too.
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 10:48 PM
It should never be that easy, but ultimately I don’t think we should be fighting the war on drugs at the scale we are in order to protect individuals from themselves.
I’m in my mid-40’s and have two very young children. I’ve seen the lives of several of my peers during the past 20 years destroyed (and in two cases ended) due to booze and/or drugs. I hope to convince my children that booze and drugs are sucker bets. I’ll do my best, and if I fail, as I possibly could in a hundred other aspects of parenting then so be it. I don’t want to outsource the job of protecting my kids, when they become young adults, from making stupid decisions.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 10:50 PM
The solution is simple for Republicans and Christians, we simply need to throw all of our support behind Mike Huckabee. He as all the qualifications the Right is looking for and he’s done very well in debates up to this point. He is quite electable if the Republican grass roots would catch on to that fact.
Maxx on October 7, 2007 at 10:50 PM
@csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Ron Paul is not crazy. Also he is not stupid and not ignorant.
You see what I did there, I gave an opinion on the internet which means nothing without even offering a reason as to why I think so.
He is a Doctor, which is fairly good proof he is not stupid. As for ignorant, he seems to be fairly up to date on most issues more so than most of congress, including issues pertaining to the internet (net neutrality) which most congressman are clueless on. As for crazy, maybe he is crazy. I have no way of deducing if he is or not, but surely you would like to offer a reason why you think he is.
Is it because he brings a message or lower taxes, less war, less foreign aid, more border security, and less government?? Is he crazy because apparently you cannot win a republican nomination running on that platform anymore?
muyoso on October 7, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I meant to qualify that and highlight tax cuts, but let’s face it, we have prospered far more than just “getting out of a recession”, and the deficit is going down. Tom Delay says that the overspending issue is exaggerated but I don’t have the figures. While we’re going through a list, one of the things I did not mention that I am still pi#$ed about is his signing McCain-Feingold.
I think you took a wrong turn somehow and ended up at Hot Air. Do you need directions?
Other than confiscatory taxes and not being able to order a beer, your complaints seem a bit hyperbolic. Can you give some examples? There are free speech issues and political correctness which are very restrictive and frightening, but that is the Left’s doing.
As for Rudy being “authoritarian” believe me, if you lived in the near state of anarchy that was NYC before he rode into town you’d be very grateful for what he did, and the negatives are very much exaggerated. Once again, can you be more specific?
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I wouldn’t go for full drug legalization, but I think decriminalization of marijuana is reasonable, I don’t care if some guy wants to toke up every once in a while at home, of course, if they’re driving stoned, send them to jail for a looooong time, Ol’ Sparky if they kill someone DWI.
/never smoked the ganja
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Wonderful. And if your kid kills someone the courts should come after you and take every dime you have and will ever earn and give it to the damaged party. You get no welfare. No government help. No nothing except for what you can earn without the courts finding out about it. But something tells me that you don’t want that much responsibility do you?
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 10:55 PM
@ Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Apparently I do. I am looking for a website just like Hot Air, but run by republicans.
muyoso on October 7, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Really? Who made that rule? Does all social conservative thinking lead to religious fundamentalism? No. Does providing for a strong executive branch lead inexorably to dictatorship? No.
We have to wait until we behave well enough before the government gives our freedom to us? That seems at odds with our founders thinking about the relationship of the individual to government.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 10:59 PM
I’m a Christian first
A Conservative second
A realist always. I will vote for the Republican most capable of winning. Because I see a Democratic winning the White House as bad for America. Same with the Congressional election-I will stump for the best Conservatives, and vote against the Liberals.
Doug on October 7, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Democrat/Democratic-forgive me-I’m tired.
Doug on October 7, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Gee are we now throwing personal responsibility out the window?
If my 3 yr old nephew kills someone the I want the police to go after my nephew, not my brother/sister.
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 11:03 PM
The courts can’t do that. Feel free to change the law though. In the scenario you describe, though, my biggest concern wouldn’t be litigation, and it is a scenario that every parent I know faces when they hand the keys to a child who is over 18.
Drunk driving kills. From your post, you sound like you are proposing to sue the driver, the parents, the teachers, the liquor companies and anyone else remotely involved. You’d have the trial lawyer vote.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 11:05 PM
It’s not that we despise him, although I can only speak for myself. The guy is a Moonbat, and he might make a good think tank employee but he is not ready for prime time. I also believe the arguments against the War are flat out wrong, and the idea that we can be isolationists is totally unrealistic, but you’ll just have to wait to see what history shows and that will take decades.
I have very mixed feelings on this issue. If someone could prove to me that if drugs were legal and no profits to be made there would be no one pushing them on others I might be persuaded. But I think I know what would happen – which is that the government would use it as a huge tax source, we’d end up with a black market and we’d be right back where we started from. Also, I disagree that you’re “outsourcing” the job of protecting your kids. We have all sorts of laws to protect kids and adults and most of them make a lot of sense.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 11:06 PM
He is stupid and ignorant because he thinks we can have the type of foreign policy he espouses.
He wants the world to be fair and nice. That is more ignorance and stupidity. In this life it is survival of the fittest. Ron Paul thinks that if we mind our own business (the way he defines it) the rest of the world will leave us alone. Ron Paul is the kind of idiot that would allow Iran to increase it’s power in the ME until it had a strangle hold on all oil. Then the US has to go crawling to other countries for our energy needs.
And when the cost of that oil makes it impossible for Americans to purchase it, only the rich (Ron Paul and his buds) will get oil. Then we are like Iran. Iran cannot project it’s power outside of the region and are at the mercy of those who can. Ron Paul and his ignorant followers believe the US is responsible for the efforts by other countries to project influence in other areas of the world. BULL$HIT! Iran is a threat to other countries in the ME and those countries are not threatening Iran!
It’s us or them and the best way to get them on our side is to kick the living $hit outta them until they capitulate!
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Capitalism vs. Socialism
jp on October 7, 2007 at 11:11 PM
I don’t fully disagree with you, and I respect your thoughts as a parent. As Americans we get the right to have as much or as little government as we choose to pay for. I’m a small government advocate and I’d accept additional personal risk or responsiblity in exchange for more liberty and lower taxes. My conservatism favors the family as the most ideal unit of social organization and am suspicious when we try to have the state step into that role.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Buy Danish, I’m talking pre-9/11. Being attacked changed this country.
Yes, but he got re-elected two years later.
No, he’s a libertarian, not a Republican. There’s a difference.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Lorien 1973,
I’m going to have to call it a night pretty soon, but before I do, I wanted you to know that I left you a response to the monkey story over here.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 11:15 PM
No. You said your kids. Not your grown adult children. If your grown adult children kill someone then everything they own and will EVER own should be taken away and given to the damaged party. No loopholes. No gifts from you. No nothing! THAT is complete personal responsibility. The only way anyone else would be responsible is if they were directly involved themselves. No excuses. No blaming. No mercy. Total and complete responsibility.
But that isn’t what you want is it? I’d bet you want some sort of relief for that responsibility. You’d want to be able to feed your child without penalty, right? Do you think their 401K should be exempt because he made a mistake and shouldn’t be punished the rest of his life?
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:16 PM
@ csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:09 PM
I mean ABSOLUTELY no offense by this, but you are the ignorant one. Let Iran build up and take over the oil, we should be putting the money we would spend trying to keep a stanglehold over the oil finding a new source of energy. You act as if there is one source of energy in this world, and as if there is no counterbalance to Iran in the region, Israel. If THAT is your argument as to why Ron Paul is an idiot, I think he is doing a pretty damn good job. You completely missed the point, that the middle east is none of our business, and that we shouldnt be fighting wars and sending our young men and women to die for a dying energy source. I think that is Ron Pauls message, how is that crazy, ignorant or stupid?
muyoso on October 7, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I agree on the decriminalization part, but there isn’t really a great test out there to determine if someone is currently high. The vast majority of tests can only say if someone has smoked in the past month. Hair tests go back even further.
So really, it’s not practical to keep stoned drivers off of the road while allowing people to smoke.
Esthier on October 7, 2007 at 11:19 PM
No. There is no need to sue. There are no defenses for the act. If you are drunk and kill someone there is no defense for it. You lose everything for the rest of your life. No help. No mitigating factors. No government or family help. NOTHING.
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:20 PM
A priest from the Vatican, an American, clarified the issue for me. He stated that while a moral code and high ideals for the choice of a candidate are valued, in the scheme of things it will be a choice of lesser than evils. He basically stated that do you choose the unknown possibility of evil or do you choose the known evil? With the known, you have a clear image of what will be, i.e. support for abortion. All I know is this, I cannot allow a Democrat, Liberal, Socialist and /or Marxist in the White House.
MNDavenotPC on October 7, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Count me as a “modernist”. I’ve voted Democrat before because they were actually more appealing than their less-conservative Republican couterpart. Oklahoma politics are not as predictable as you might think.
thedecider on October 7, 2007 at 11:22 PM
As you’ve presented the options in the hypothetical. I would accept the one of responsibility, in that alternate universe, if the other option was having a larger federal government and police force who’s job it was to limit individual liberty.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Lower taxes are a huge issue for me, but I don’t see how, say, seatbelt laws, raise taxes, and the infringement on liberty is really very small.
Using that example, more often than not if someone is unnecessarily killed because they didn’t wear a seatbelt it is not a question of no harm no foul to the rest of us since other people are affected, such as orphaned children when a parent is killed.
I realize that people will always continue to do stupid things, but if we are brought up to, say, wear seatbelts, and it is just second nature to us to do so, and the benefits really are enormous.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 11:24 PM
When that kook RP has his way, all the oil coming from American sources will be owned privately and those companies can charge what they like. The RP government wont get involved regardless of what they charge. Hell, they don’t even have to sell to the US. If China or Russia, who aren’t under the insane delusions that Ron Paul is, decide they will pay top dollar for ALL oil, those private companies will sell to them.
Ron Paul is ignorant, stupid, and crazy.
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Arggh. Sorry Deadalus, delete the comma after “seatbelt laws”.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Sorry I’m late replying…
My big issue is his aggressiveness in restricting 2nd amendment rights(and I don’t even own a gun *yet*, I just recognize the importance of the 2nd, and I view its functional strength in the US a major indicator of our level of liberty), but there are concerns others have. I really don’t trust that if an abusive gun ban or restriction or registration program bill lands on his desk, that Rudy’ll refrain from signing it.
We’ve been burned too many times lately to trust anyone in power anymore. The era of “Trust, but Verify” is over, the era of “Distrust and Certify” is beginning, we don’t trust our leadership with anything, assume they’re in the game to shaft us, and make damn sure they do what they say they will, and be ready to enforce it.
Again, I think people want to apply how NYC works to the rest of the US, and it Just. Doesn’t. Fit. I get that Rudy had to be strict to fix NYC, and it was broken, but not everywhere in America is broken, and I worry when he says “We’ll do it like we did in NY” where he’s going with it.
I guess what I’m saying is, I’m concerned that the inertia of being heavy-handed in NY will carry over into how he acts as executive on a National level, if he’ll try and fix all the broken places by trying to impose strong restrictions, and because its federal policy, it’ll blanket places that don’t want or need that kind of thing.
As for buying beer & spirits, I’m over 21, I’m fine. My personal pet peeves are obnoxious arbitrary bans, whether its spooky lookin firearms, calls for environmental restrictions on car and home or business, smoking bans(I don’t smoke), dumb restrictions on alcohol sales(PA-all state owned, yaaay Socialism!), and any other stupid ban or restriction that makes you go, WTF? Why? (think the stupid baggy pants bans)
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Are you proposing that that should be the law now? Go ahead and shoot it in. I don’t think you’ll be able to get all the legal changes in place, but stopping you wouldn’t be one of my highest priorities. Have at it.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Sorry, you don’t get to weasel out of this. If you want all freedoms then you have to be responsible for them, all by your lonesome. No help. No government. No nothing.
The libertarian theory, like communism, looks good on paper. But in the real world, it is totally unworkable.
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Generally speaking, anything the MSM writes about Republicans is wrong. So why would you give any credit to this nonsense?
Rudy will not be the GOP nominee. Period. Therefore, all speculation about Christian conservatives ditching the GOP in such an eventuality is nonsense.
The point of this NYTimes article is to convince moderate Republicans who support Rudy that the GOP is held captive by crackpot extremists. In other words, it’s disinformation.
The GOP nominee will be either Romney or Thompson. Not because of radical Christianists, but because Rudy is a lousy candidate who’s not conservative.
Ali-Bubba on October 7, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I also think that the parents of the kid killed by the drunk driver should also face jailtime because they did not have a safer car for their child.
/sarcasm
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 11:30 PM
It sounds like you want it both ways. If you want the freedom to do any drug you want, then society doesn’t have to take any responsibility for the consequences of your drug use. You don’t get to go into court and plead ignorance or give some hard luck story. Since you don’t have to ask society’s permission to engaged in risky behavior, then society is not responsible to decide if you were able to take on that responsibility. You get it all. No court to get the drug, no court to save you from the consequences of that drug use.
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:35 PM
-
Hmmmm, I think it is far from won, it seems like every week some new cockamamie bill passes out of some state legislature or another – if there weren’t that lenghtly email I get from the NRA would be pretty empty most of the time.
-
Microstamping is all the current rage out in CA, the bill is sitting on good ol’ Arnie’s desk right now. Since every gun law that “infringes” is technically invalid, that fight won’t be won until virtually all of the 20,000 some odd gun laws on the books are repealed and politicians stop trying to implement new ones.
Herikutsu on October 7, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Don’t worry about the comma. I make plenty of typing mistakes too. I’m more of a pragmatist than an idealist. If seatbelt laws save lives, then count me in. Funny thing though is that they’ve come about over the past two decades and I mostly ignored the laws while I was single. Compliance with the laws was brought about by my wife when I got married 4 years ago. So maybe that is as much a point for the effectiveness of family to modify individual behavior–she also monitors my diet and makes sure I don’t look like a slob when I leave the house.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Yep if we can ban guns then lets make it impossible to sell bullets.
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Oh, and lets not forget all the Nanny State decency calls, and Nannies who want to make sure don’t hear or see anything with sex or violence or political viewpoints they don’t like (Fairness Doctrine), I think of things like The Glacier calling for restrictions on video games in particular(you might not like them, but that’s abusive, and you know damn well other media would be effected next) and I think…hmm, would Rudy go for that kind of thing too?
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Sarcasm? I think not. That is exactly where these libertarian types want to go when that crap happens. They want someone else to be responsible. If the guy who killed the kid has nothing then they want to go for whoever has the deepest pockets. Libertarians want to take drugs and do whatever they want to do, but still have the protections of the nanny state.
BULL$HIT!
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:39 PM
can’t ban rather
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 11:40 PM
I could get some drugs tonight if I wanted–I live in New York City. It would be even easier to drink an obscene amount of booze tonight–even have some over on the shelf. Life is already too short for me to reck my body with drugs, so I choose not to. That is a decision I’ve made based on being endowed by my Creator with unalienable rights. I don’t believe that we should have to ask the King of England or the U.S. Government what rights we are allowed to have. I think the 9th Amendment was added for a purpose.
As I said earlier. If you want to make confiscation of wealth the penalty for stupid drug-related behavior, then OK.
dedalus on October 7, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I think a law should be passed that allows any person to live under a libertarian system by signing a contract with the federal, state, and local governments. They can take all the drugs they want and have all the freedoms they want. BUT, they get no protection from any entity for the consequences of their actions. No excuses. No mitigating factors. No loopholes.
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:48 PM
If by that you mean that Rudy will win if nominated and the other Republican candidates will lose if nominated, then you are very much assuming facts not in evidence.
FeralCat on October 7, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Someone quoted this and I’ll just say, not even close to over! There’s a new and much more toxic Spooky Weapons Ban waiting in committee, I guarantee if the Dems win big in 08(or if we get a gun grabby GOPer), its good as passed, the Blue Dogs can wink-nudge and say they resisted it, sort of like voting for cloture and against the bill in the Amnesty Disaster, I guarantee that’s what they’d do. Everyone thinks its over, if there’s anything we’ve learned in the Amnesty fight, its that with the left and their corrupt GOP collaborators, its never over!
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Nice try. You are espousing libertarian freedoms, but then fall back on the constitution to protect you from stupid behavior.
I have rights too. Those include not having my taxes raised because you can’t pay for the consequences of your own actions. You lose your job and all your wealth and then want to go back to the nanny state for your health care and food. In the libertarian system, I have rights to. I don’t want my money taken away from me to provide you with a hypocritical way of life.
ALL libertarians want it both ways.
csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 11:53 PM
OK, I’m not a libertarian but a conservative. But the problem with this argument is that you assume that the legalization of drugs implies that you have amnesty over any other criminal act. NO. If you commit robbery, murder, assault, etc. etc. etc, there are laws on the books for that and you should be prosecuted. Buying, selling, possessing, taking a drug should be a freedom in a free society.
I really enjoy the comments on this thread. I too believe that the Republican nominee will either be Romney or Thompson. Many people don’t like Rudy’s positions for many reasons. It is just easy to blame the ‘religious right’ and ‘abortion’ for Rudy’s short-comings.
I actually think that Hunter is the best candidate. But if McCain won the nom and put Hunter on the ticket, that would be tough to beat.
This is a very good debate on many issues that you couldn’t have anywhere else. And it seems to have maintained some civility as well. Well done to everyone, and thank you.
ThackerAgency on October 7, 2007 at 11:53 PM
If only.…………
If only..……….. conservatives would vote their conscience…
If only I, (Mike Huckabee) would get more coverage from the mainstream media…….
If only I, (Mike Huckabee) had more money…..
If only.…. people would pay more attention to me…
In the meanwhile some candidates have a very strong web presence, which is a really economical way of bypassing the media and getting your message out…..
If Mike Huckabee, et al would’ve started with a net positive attitude and got his web presence up to snuff, in other words quit whining how he is not getting enough attention and beat everybody else at getting his message out, maybe he wouldn’t have to whine about…..
…And his supporters wouldn’t be whining with these….
….If only….. excuses.
If you want the public to support you in your public service endeavor, well then, you have to show up with enough ambition, planning, and management thereof to outshine your competitors and prove that you can withstand the pressure of governing.
If someone cannot pass the snuff of campaigning on a winning strategy….. then, how is the public going to believe a candidate is up for the pressure of governing?
And PLEASE, Maxx, don’t come back with another if only….
It is up to the candidate to show us, the public, that he/she is worth it, not the other way around.
When these excuses – whether they be religious, spiritual, social, fiscal, emotional, etc – are used as the reason why a candidate doesn’t have enough support, it is really an insult on our intelligence.
And that is something that John Q. Public does not tolerate.
It is an affront to our intelligent freedom of choice guaranteed as a citizen.
I could go on ad nauseam pointing out the discombobulated and inconsistent spin of a few, albeit influential voices.
Having said that, I’m not a Rudy shill and hope we can do better than that as a net positive for the Republican nominee…. definitely someone that doesn’t need to worry about getting an applause or feel the need to impress us with cell phone tricks.
If you have read and truly listened to what I just said you will get my drift on the substance of the same.
Mcguyver on October 7, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Very true
If we get any president that is “gun grabby” you can bet the UN is going to go after our guns again.
That is one other thing I will give credit to Bush/Bolton for.
F15Mech on October 7, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Huck? When hell freezes over, his call for a National Smoking Ban is exactly the kind of stupid, abusive Nanny Statism I rail against.
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 11:57 PM
We all know what happens when drugs are legalized. More people take them. That means more health issues. If a guy OD’s on the street because he wanted to exercise his right, do I have to pay for the public system that saves his life?
See, they don’t get to engage in risky behavior and make me ultimately responsible to save them from that behavior. And in my experience, most people who want the freedoms we are talking about also do not want to be responsible for that behavior.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 12:04 AM
You sound like a ‘nanny stater’. In other words, you think it is the responsibility of the government to save the people from themselves. I said nothing about using the public system to save this person’s life. You assumed that.
You would have to assume a Hillary like Universal Health Care system to believe something like that. Assuming that when drugs are legalized, more people take them is an argument that can be used against gay marriage – yet we don’t dare hear it because it isn’t politically correct.
If you legalize and tax, the tax dollars can be used on prevention and rehabilitation programs. There’s your ‘nanny state’ situation that you are afraid of. But the fact is America already takes care of those who OD, but we still pay for it with tax dollars. At least if it were legalized, regulated, and taxed, we’d have more revenue to do what we already do.
Legalizing drugs is fiscally responsible.
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Alright, whatever, I’m off, g’night.
Bad Candy on October 8, 2007 at 12:09 AM
That’s very true and that’s a reason why the C.R. feel so marginalized. This story is going to dominate the election now: Hillary Clinton Would Overturn Bush’s Executive Order on Stem Cell Research if Elected President and it very well may determine the outcome.
There are so many people who will eagerly believe Hillary’s outrageous “war against science” claim that we have to unite as conservatives and explain the ethics and consequences of this to the American people. Personally, I think Mitt is great on this issue and that is one reason I lean a bit more towards him than Rudy.
Re Rudy, the problem with your argument is that Rudy did what he did precisely because it WAS a local issue. He acted in what he felt was New York City’s best interest, not what was the best for the country. As President he would have very different parameters to work from.
Regarding specific restrictions:
I actually agree with local baggy pants laws, because it is obscene to be looking at someone’s butt crack and an infringement of my rights not to be subjected to it. That goes under a “community standards” category.
I think we should be able to buy wine and beer on Sunday.
I don’t want Congress deciding how the auto industry should design its cars, particularly if a less safe vehicle is the result.
I think the EPA is out of control, and I can see it in my own neighborhood, and generally speaking we have far, far too many regulations that are damaging our prosperity, our national security, and the “environment” in the long run.
I think some smoking restrictions are okay (like on airplanes) but restaurants, as private businesses, should be able to decide for themselves how they want to run their business.
I’m not sure what you mean by “spooky looking firearms” but I don’t think we have a “right” to walk around with machine guns and I think it’s reasonable to require safety courses and some sort of database that can only be accessed if a crime is committed.
:)
Buy Danish on October 8, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I just saw this and see you’ve gone to bed. Except for the “fairness doctrine” which is as appalling a restriction of speech as I can imagine, I mostly disgree with the rest but perhaps we can get into the details tomorrow, since I too need to say goodnight!
Buy Danish on October 8, 2007 at 12:14 AM
When I say “Spooky lookin’ weapons” I’m usually talking semi-auto rifles…*sigh* semi-auto “assault rifles” I’m not an absolutist by any means, but seriously, why ban semi-auto rifles? Its rare that they’re used in crime, so there’s no real justification in banning them, other than to kick around regular folks who like to fire off a semi-auto AR or AK on weekends at the range. And beyond that, there’s bans on other spooky looking guns that rappers talk about in their lyrics, like the “StreetSweeper” shotgun and TEC-9s.
You realize the new ban wants to ban the M1 Carbine? How the bloody hell can they try and ban the M1 Carbine? Its a classic WWII rifle, you douchebags, an American icon! Ugh, at least leave the classics alone…nothing is sacred to these people.
As for a registry/database, don’t even consider it, IN ANY FORM, Britain and Australia both had them, and both governments used them to confiscate people’s guns. Even if they say they won’t abuse said list, they will, I guarantee it, governments exist to expand their own power, and registries are invariably used to confiscate weapons at some point…don’t buy the lie that its reasonable to have a registry.
Bad Candy on October 8, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Mcguyver on October 7, 2007 at 11:54 PM
You certainly spun a lot of words from my simple phrase. You said all of that, I didn’t. And I think it’s possible that Republicans will catch on to Huckabee’s campaign, at least I hope so. He is what most people on the Right are looking for.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Fiscally responsible yes, socially responsible I don’t think so.
I see you are in insurance, How much would my car insurance be if I told you I drink 6 beers every night before I go to work at midnight?
Would you even insure me? (I hope not) if that is not an SR-22 case in VA, then I don’t know what is.
If I told you that I smoke a joint before I drive to work would you insure me?
What about some coke?
PCP is always good right before I drive.
However if I really want to drive safe heroin is the best drug to inject.
If all of the drugs are legal, I am not doing anything illegal correct? You should have to provide me with insurance since I am doing nothing wrong.
The problem with alcohol is that once you go past the “safe” point one more is a danger to everyone on the road.
It is the same with drugs however their is no “safe point” with them. (It can be argued that their is no safe point with alcohol either).
One hit/snort/injection and I just become a danger on the road.
1 beer in 10 min…chances are that I can still drive correctly/legally.
F15Mech on October 8, 2007 at 12:45 AM
True, and I agree that Reagan, politically was far right. What I was saying is that until 1980, what we now consider the “religious right” was a centrist mix of “render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s” fiscal conservative and “love your fellow man” societal spendthrift. That is to say, while they did not believe in paying more taxes than they were due, they believed that the majority of government expenditures was intended to be devoted to social programs. The idea of the religious contingent being in favor of strong border enforcement or a super-spending national defense or a certain set of societal values like no abortion at all, no gay marriage at all, no stem cell research at all, were not values made part and parcel of the GOP/religious right movement until 1980. They may have been part of Reagan’s stumping, but Falwell and the religious/political portion of the Conservative Christian movement did not link arms with it until 1980.
Spc Steve on October 8, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Simple answer they look scary, and when the sheeple get scared they generally support anything that will make them un-scared.
F15Mech on October 8, 2007 at 1:21 AM
I knew what you meant… ;-)
Herikutsu on October 8, 2007 at 1:21 AM
I didn’t think the Constitution was a fall-back position. I thought it illustrated rights individuals have that they are endowed with and not granted by the government. The Constitution is the cornerstone of our country, not a cop-out.
You assume several things: 1.) I couldn’t pay; 2.) I want to do drugs 3.) After doing drugs I’d want to drive around in my SUV. I could already drink a lot and drive, which I don’t for reasons that don’t involve the government.
I respect the opinion that drug legalization has a lot of downsides. However, I don’t see your evidence that I want it both ways. My position might be impractical, but it isn’t hypocritical. Freedom & responsibility go hand-in-hand. I favor high penalties for injuring other people and I’m opposed to socialized medicine.
My original point was that hundreds of billions of dollars has been spent on the war on drugs during the past 25 years and the result of our spending has been…cheaper drugs. Something isn’t right.
dedalus on October 8, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Here is some food for thought. In my daily conversations at the office and in other places it is clear to me that many people do not fully appreciate the absolute link between RKBA and liberty.
-
The 2nd Ammendment is there so that we may have all the terrible instruments of war in order to, should worse come to worse, preserve our liberties against attack, no matter where it comes from. To use a cliche, the difference between a subject and a citizen is a gun. If you do not have the means to defend your rights, then you do not really have those rights. They can be withdrawn at the whim of any thug with a predisposition to do so, whether a creep on the street or a politician with a legislative pen.
-
Subjects enjoy privleges at the pleasure of their government. Citizens have rights.
-
If we do not jealously preserve this right above all others we will have lost the ability to preserve all the other rights we cherish. In my view any politician who does not respect this right does not respect any of my rights.
-
It’s not about little holes on paper or duck hunting.
Herikutsu on October 8, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Very well said.
And to all of the Rudy fans out there how does it feel to vote for a person that you know is going to take you rights away?
F15Mech on October 8, 2007 at 2:16 AM
F15Mech on October 8, 2007 at 2:16 AM
I’ve done it before, and I’ll do it again.
Big S on October 8, 2007 at 2:36 AM
Wow… putting “Religious Right” in a headline is the ultimate comment chum!
This is the right time for everyone to draw their line in the ideological sand… we’ll get to compromise later once he vs. she is finalized.
T J Green on October 8, 2007 at 4:12 AM
If putting abortion – something a president Giuliani, at best, could send back to the States (most of which would uphold the legality of) via judges, not outlaw – over the prospect of having a Democrat run the war (or rather, preside over our defeat) is something the evangelical wing of the GOP decides to do, it will only confirm the Democrats’ view of us as hopelessly stupid.
Halley on October 8, 2007 at 4:28 AM
If all of the drugs are legal, I am not doing anything illegal correct? You should have to provide me with insurance since I am doing nothing wrong.F15Mech on October 8, 2007 at 12:45 AM
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that people who advocate for the legalization of drug possession and use are simultaneously advocating for the elimination of criminal and civil liability for actual harms caused by such possession and use.
In Libertopia, just because it’s legal to get hopped up on goofballs doesn’t mean it’s also legal to drive while hopped up on goofballs.
Centerfire on October 8, 2007 at 4:29 AM
Well said. I may have to hold my nose next year when I vote, but I will vote against HER.
Texas Nick 77 on October 8, 2007 at 5:32 AM
A more apt analogy would be comparing the people looking to boot Rudy to the Kos Kids who booted Lieberman.
Dash on October 8, 2007 at 8:14 AM
Just a quick note about the Rudy being “anti gun”. For those that dont live in the NY/NJ area, it’s very “anti-gun” around here that I’ve seen. I went to a neighborhood watch meeting with all the people on my block the other night. One man mentioned to the officer giving us information that he had registered his weapons in his old town, and asked if he should re-register them in our town.
Later on when we were mingling more than one couple announced their kids would not be going over there to play and seemed generally horrified at the thought of someone owning a gun.
To contrast, I have family in Alabama and Georgia who think nothing of it. This is why federalism is a win ;) and it’s also why I give Rudy some slack on the issue.
Dash on October 8, 2007 at 8:21 AM
The Religious Right need to get their heads out of their backsides and remember that until “JC” gets on the ticket we’re stuck with these fallible humans. Cutting off your nose to spite your face accomplishes absolutely nothing.
rplat on October 8, 2007 at 8:25 AM
Hey F15 mech. I am actually in health insurance. And I believe it is silly that if you test positive for marijuana and have no other health issues, you will be declined for health insurance altogether.
Auto insurance should not have anything to do with whether or not someone has used drugs either. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Drugs have to do with health not driving ability.
I guess the underlying point is the war on drugs has done nothing to help the situation. It has gotten a lot of cops killed, and it has made a lot of bad people rich. It costs us a lot of tax money. There has to be a SOLUTION other than ’spend more money and have no effect’.
Alcohol was a linchpin for organized crime when it was prohibited. Prohibition was the best thing that could have happened to the mafia. Prohibition on drugs does the same thing to organized crime gangs in America. If you legalize it, you take away their only source of revenue that they use to do bad things in society.
Just because you CAN does not mean you WILL. I CAN drink alcohol legally because I’m 35. I don’t very often because I don’t like it.
My point is that the ‘war on drugs’, which is a Reagan thing, does not do anything but cost a crap load of money. I can still get whatever drug I want right now (I don’t). But if we are going to throw so much money at something, I would hope that it would work better than making people ‘feel better’ that their government is wasting money on a soundbite like ‘war on drugs’.
In a perfect world, nobody would use drugs. But government prohibition does nothing to take that desire away. It only makes users criminals, puts cops in danger, costs a lot of money, and gives a lot of bad people a lot of revenue they otherwise would not have to do bad things.
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 8:26 AM
Let’s sum of press coverage of the election so far:
Hillary – way out in front, everyone loves her, Bush already making plans to hand over power
Giuliani – may have trouble because the Christian Coalition doesn’t like him
Thompson – may have trouble because he is lazy and has a trophy wife and once lobbied for a group that supported abortion
Romney – may have trouble because he is Mormom and a flip-flopper
wryteacher on October 8, 2007 at 8:39 AM
1) No, I want a limited nanny state.
2) Who pays when the tax money from drug sales is all gone?
3) Legalizing drugs would exponentially increase it’s use and abuse.
4) We do take care of people now, but we aren’t living in a libertarian society. We are expected to help the less fortunate even if it is their own fault that they are in the situation they are in.
And again, I couldn’t care less if you want to ruin your life with drug use. The question you types refuse to answer is WHY should I have to pay for it? When you kill an innocent who should be responsible? ME?! I think not! You want to take drugs, then you must shoulder all the responsibility. If you are forced to forfeit all you own and all you ever will own and you don’t have a nanny state to fall back on, then you shoulder the responsibility of YOUR actions. If you choose not to work and become homeless, then you will die on the streets like a dog. Fitting I think because of the havoc you wreaked on the victim and their family.
You types NEVER think this through. You want all freedoms and no responsibility. BULL$HIT! Drug use is destructive. PERIOD. You demand the right to engage in destructive behavior and I demand that you take responsibility for that behavior. That’s just too real for the drug legalization crowd.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Another thing that shows you to want this all your own way. WHY should the taxes person “A” pays when he buys legal drugs be used to rehabilitate person “B” when they have to go to rehab? Again, why should “responsible” drug freaks be forced to support the drug freaks who ruin their lives and the lives of their family’s?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 9:03 AM
He asked the wrong question; it isn’t whether the Evangelicals would vote for someone whose opinion on gay marriage and abortion is different than theirs, it’s whether the Evangelicals are still opposed to abortion and gay marriage.
Many of them are not; rather, they are liberal supporters of these things.
Jaibones on October 8, 2007 at 9:20 AM
That is a crock.
They’d wouldn’t invite your kid over if you didn’t believe in Global Warming either.
And I agree about Federalism.
Buy Danish on October 8, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Oh, you mean the nomination that a center-left, hawkish Nixon-clone like Giuliani would submit? Like Blackmun, the one that wrote RvW? You aren’t convincing anyone with that shinola. Political blackmail only works if you’re coming from a position of strength. There’s precious little difference between Rudy and Hillary.
spmat on October 8, 2007 at 10:06 AM
You didn’t comprehend what I just said:
.
What you missed is my whole point of, “if he was so great” why didn’t people throw their weight behind him from the beginning in ever increasing numbers?
This…….
………….. explains why.
…Who the hell is going to support someone like Huck, from the grassroots level you so praise, when so many people are so outspoken against government controls of smoking?
John Q. Public is smarter than that. And your insinuations are an insult to our intelligence.
That’s why your …If onlys….. are really just whining and wishy washy emotions, since Huck as a candidate really just hasn’t shown us, the public, that he is worth of our consideration.
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Puhlease. If Hillary had been Mayor of New York people would still be running around urinating on the streets, the subways would still be covered with graffiti, the Unions would be running the city, taxes would be sky high, and a glorious mosaic theme would be part of the “I love New York” ad campaign.
Buy Danish on October 8, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Apparently, social conservatives never dare to get off their high horse, nor have they ever embraced or even attempted to understand the principle of the “lesser of two evils”.
Those of you who think that conceding a short-term loss for a long term gain better re-think their position. After 8 years of Hillary, with millions upon millions of illegals being ushered into the US, and being reminded that it is because of the Democrats that they are there…voila, the GOP will be rendered permanent minority status and no amount of opposition by the far Christian right will be able to offset that.
With the current infiltration of the Islamists, the reality of foreign affairs, border control and immigration reform, this election is quite possibly, the most important in the last 50 years or so.
And the social conservatives are considering sitting this one out effectively de-railing the pro-choice Republican candidate and handing over the Presidency to the pro-choice Democrat??
That type of idiocy is nothing short of astounding.
awake on October 8, 2007 at 11:32 AM
You are advocating for more of a nanny state than the others here who are suggesting that we decrease the $50B or so per year that we spend on the drug war.
$50B goes a long way (SCHIP, for instance, is about $7B) even if the tax revenues from drug sales were minimal. We could borrow less money from China, and maybe the US$ would be worth something again.
It would increase, by how much would depend on what was done. Ultimately, though I don’t think we elect a government to protect us from our own cravings. An additional consideration is that the increase in drug abuse might be offset by the drying up of a lucrative revenue stream for gangs and other organized crime.
A lot of nanny staters advocate restrictions on tobacco, liquor, and trans fats with the same argument.
dedalus on October 8, 2007 at 11:44 AM
You know what…. I did not know that. And it’s exactly the kind of stupid, abusive Nanny Statism I rail against too ! So I take back everything nice I said about Huckabee, I’m serious! I hate that kind of crap, I doubt I could support him on that account alone. That leaves us with Tancredo, who is actually my favorite, and he smokes cigars, but I don’t think he’s electable.
Wait a minute… I’m having second thoughts. It seems to me the Democrats are much bigger “Nanny staters” than any Republican. And Huckabee could not get a national smoking ban without Congressional legislation, which he may or may not get. Democrats may very well push for the same thing. So why not support Huckabee? With the exception of the smoking thing, he seems right on other issues and I think he might be electable if he got the nomination. We could fight him on the smoking ban if he ever got around to pushing that.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Agreed. That is why I posted that the Democratic base is growing faster then the GOP base. Next year might be the last time for a while when we can elect a Republican.
Hilts on October 8, 2007 at 12:13 PM
No… I chose not to dignify your non sequitur rant with an answer.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 12:28 PM
So if you didn’t know that (stupid smoking ban idea) about him….what other things are there?
That’s my point, exactly…. It’s the little things that begin from the get go…. that matter. The idea that John Q. Public wasn’t informed enough is ludricous.
He, or any other candidate had all the opportunity in the beginning to demonstrate leadership in getting his message out, which is the most critical of all skills. If not, then why is the most common complaint about president Bush his lack of getting the message out?
If the message doesn’t get out, then what is the point of any public service endeavor?
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 12:36 PM
If the message doesn’t get out, then what is the point of any public service endeavor?
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 12:42 PM
This discussion isn’t about me, because I haven’t advocated anything. It’s about the destruction of our society that you libertarians are advocating because you can’t curb your apatite for drugs.
You want to change from the nanny state we have to the nanny state that allows you to take whatever drugs you want whenever you want and you hide behind the guise of being a libertarian. You don’t want to be responsible for your actions, yet you hide behind the demand for unlimited freedom.
You are being intellectually dishonest. You refuse to address this point:
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »