Christian conservative leaders to meet again on Saturday about third-party candidate; Update: Huckabee’s a “wishy washy Republican,” says Viguerie

posted at 2:38 pm on October 18, 2007 by Allahpundit

Another “private” meeting that’s so public, even lefty rag Salon knows about it. This one will follow Rudy’s speech to the Values Voter Summit by a few hours, so there’s a very, very slim chance it’ll turn into a “well, maybe he’s not so bad” conversation.

Very, very, very slim.

“There will be further exploration of what is to be done,” said Howard Phillips, the president of the Conservative Caucus, who participated in the Salt Lake meeting. “And there will be some discussion of who would be a viable independent candidate.”

Conservative circles have been buzzing for weeks about the possibility of a third-party bid, which remains a heavily disputed idea even among religious conservatives. On Wednesday, longtime conservative leader Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, published a column laying out three requirements for a successful third-party bid: major defections of elected officials from the Republican Party, the financial backing of an independently wealthy individual, and the support of a major news organization, like the Fox News Channel or the Wall Street Journal. “If the walkout of Republicans grassroots were dramatic enough and if it enticed major figures to join, which in turn caused millionaires to follow along and caused major media continually to provide favorable treatment, a third party could work,” Weyrich argued in the article.

In other words, Weyrich thinks social cons should be in it to win it, not just to make a show of withholding their vote from Rudy. Who could they get to run as an independent, though, who might stand a chance of attracting “major figures” away from the GOP nominee and making a race of it? The only person of that stature I can think of is Newt, but I can’t see him jumping in and splitting the conservative movement knowing the Clintons will be the ones to benefit. Huckabee’s a decent match with the religious right on policy positions, but he’s also getting crushed in fundraising by Ron Paul. What’s a disgruntled social con to do?

Exit question: Did somebody say successful third-party bid, god help us?

Update: Never mind that Huckabee third-party run. Richard Viguerie, who attended the earlier “private” meeting of social cons in Salt Lake City, says Huck’s not conservative enough either.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

tell them to stop that and find a republican candidate to support

I mean if these meshuggahs jumped on to support a ‘conservative’ candidate like a Hunter or a Huckabee, then he’d become almost overnight the favorite.

Defector01 on October 18, 2007 at 2:40 PM

These guys seriously need to get over themselves. Odd, that just a couple of days ago we were riding atheists about their narcissism.

DaveS on October 18, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Christian conservative leaders to meet again on Saturday about third-party candidate.

At some point and time – everyone has to sit down and shut up . Please, participate in the election without acting like spoiled little children.

jake-the-goose on October 18, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Some of us have enough integrity not to vote for mass murderers (I don’t care if you don’t think abortion is murder, I do, and be glad there are brave men and women out there willing to go to such lengths to prevent it, we’d do the same if your particular group was the one being annihilated). If I had to vote between Hitler and Stalin I’d stay home too.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Dennis Prager would be a good possibility, but he is adamantly opposed to this third party business and has vowed to address the disgruntled Christian right over and over again on his show. I would love it if he ran sometime in the future.

I don’t mind these rumblings so much now, if they serve to drive our candidates to the right.

RushBaby on October 18, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Here’s my theory: They see a loss coming in ’08 and are betting that they can preserve the political weight they enjoy if they abstain from losing. Ie we aren’t happy, so we aren’t going to really try, even to the point of stirring up some talk about 3rd party. So when/if R candidate loses in ’08 they are absolved of responsibility and forces the R candidates next time around to court them, and maybe even stimulate the party to clean itself up a little. If they fully commit and lose in ’08, they are marginalized and another group takes their place in terms of political necessity for a majority.

Spirit of 1776 on October 18, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Fantasy…….even if they did get the WH what then? We end up with a parlimentary mess in both houses. What does that encourage? Gridlock. Nothing could be worse then a Republicratitarian in the WH.

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 2:50 PM

What’s wrong with gridlock? I thought “the less the government does the better” was a conservative motto.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 2:52 PM

I should add: I think that is also why they (collectively) haven’t gotten behind one of the life-long pro-life candidates: Tancredo, Hunter, Huckabee, etc because not seen as able to carry the general even if win the primary, which is also unlikely. I would seem to me that one of those candidates would be naturally appealing, so must be mitigated by electability concerns.

Spirit of 1776 on October 18, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Odd, that just a couple of days ago we were riding atheists about their narcissism.

DaveS on October 18, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Every group is full of narcissists, I can’t stand these tools either.

Oh, and Allah, DEAR GOD NO, NOT NANNY BLOOMBERG!

Bad Candy on October 18, 2007 at 2:54 PM

What’s wrong with gridlock? I thought “the less the government does the better” was a conservative motto.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Yeah…great….no budgets, no defense bills, no agreement on border control…..let’s let chaos take hold….that’ll teach everyone.

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Bloomberg will be really popular with social cons.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 18, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Successful 3rd Party? This is a joke, right?

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:00 PM

I mean if these meshuggahs jumped on to support a ‘conservative’ candidate like a Hunter or a Huckabee, then he’d become almost overnight the favorite.

Defector01 on October 18, 2007 at 2:40 PM

You’re greatly overstating their influence. They have some influence, but not nearly enough to turn a candidate who’s polling low single digits (Hunter) or even mid single digits (Huckabee) into a frontrunner. Nothing can save Hunter at this point short of an endorsement from God himself.

They might not be overly enthused about candidates like Fred or Mitt who aren’t running in the GW Bush “Jesus is my copilot” mold, but they probably wouldn’t actively oppose them either. However with Rudy being squarely in the pro-choice camp, they probably would oppose him- perhaps to the point of supporting a 3rd party spoiler that would unquestionably lead to a victory by Hillary.

Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Thank God we have agreement on border control now. Oh wait…

If the dems don’t have the balls to cut our defense budgets now they’re not gonna have it after a humiliating defeat in 08 either. What’s gonna likely happen is that things are gonna stay in the exact same way they are now.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:01 PM

If these idiots do that, they may as well form their own party, especially if their petulance foists the dragon lady on us.

They sure as hell won’t be welcome back into the GOP fold any time soon.

As for Nanny Bloomberg, let the little egomaniac run. It’ll siphon off Democrat votes.

I see where Blackwater/Hillary flack Mark Penn claims 25% of GOP women will vote for the pantsuit. That’ll be more than offset by male Reagan Democrats who want no part of her.

JammieWearingFool on October 18, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Oh goodie, let’s argue about whether abortion = murder.

Some of us have enough integrity not to vote for mass murderers (I don’t care if you don’t think abortion is murder, I do, and be glad there are brave men and women out there willing to go to such lengths to prevent it, we’d do the same if your particular group was the one being annihilated). If I had to vote between Hitler and Stalin I’d stay home too.

If you really believe all of the above, then how could you support any candidate who isn’t committed to prosecuting abortion providers and abortion-seeking women just like every other kind of murderer? Obviously, GW Bush was just another Hitler-enabler, so you couldn’t have supported him.

My guess is that the actual number of people ready to embrace that position is vanishingly small, and unlikely to tip any election one way or another (unless by bombing abortion clinics or murdering abortion providers they manage to turn the populace against more moderate RTL activists). If that’s not your position, then you might want to acknowledge that any participation in public life (arguably any participation in life at all) requires compromise.

CK MacLeod on October 18, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Freaking idiots, scary very scary indeed.

conservnut on October 18, 2007 at 3:05 PM

JammieWearingFool on October 18, 2007 at 3:02 PM

True, on all counts, BTW, responded to ya at LGF.

Bad Candy on October 18, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:01 PM

? not sure what you mean by agreement on BC. Didn’t know my position was on it was up for grabs.

? Dem humiliation ? If you have read any of my posts then you I expect the exact opposite. We be in trouble.

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 3:06 PM

sorry Darth….meant to put that in quotes

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 3:07 PM

What’s the difference between Bloomberg and Rudy?

We paleocons are always told to be activists in the primaries and hold our collective noses to vote for the RINO GOP establishment candidate.

This year, we start off with none of the above instead of that choice in the general election. More power to the social cons.

Valiant on October 18, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Listen here you S.O.B’s that buy into this third-party candidate crap. Do you realize what the hell you are doing? Well if you don’t let me enlighten your stupid A$$………..Hillary will be our next president and the dems will be able to ruin our military, our security and our families. How’s that idiots!!!!!!! Get it!!!

Winebabe on October 18, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Game over, man.

I guess Hot Air will be shutting down then…..

Capitalist Infidel on October 18, 2007 at 3:12 PM

If you really believe all of the above, then how could you support any candidate who isn’t committed to prosecuting abortion providers and abortion-seeking women just like every other kind of murderer? Obviously, GW Bush was just another Hitler-enabler, so you couldn’t have supported him.

Because preventing future murders is far more important than prosecuting the criminals. Which isn’t to say I wouldn’t love to see a lot of people in prison over it.

My guess is that the actual number of people ready to embrace that position is vanishingly small, and unlikely to tip any election one way or another (unless by bombing abortion clinics or murdering abortion providers they manage to turn the populace against more moderate RTL activists). If that’s not your position, then you might want to acknowledge that any participation in public life (arguably any participation in life at all) requires compromise.

CK MacLeod on October 18, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Sorry, there are some things I don’t compromise on. I’m willing to compromise on the punishment for mass murder. I’m not willing to compromise on the continuation of mass murder.
And my position is this: If I had direct control over law enforcement in this area I’d have the masterminds behind current abortion providers in the gulags doing hard labour for the rest of their miserable lives and abortion providers (who are now doing their job illegally) treated like all serial killers should be treated: killed on sight by law enforcement. The punishment of the women would depend on the situation. If she was coerced (including emotional coercion) by family/friends she’d get a lesser sentence and those family members would suddenly find themselves in prison learing the true meaning of hard work. If she was a rape victim she’d be in a psych ward where some asshat with glasses and a white coat will try to explain to them that just because she was raped doesn’t mean she can murder people. OTOH, if she’s one of the “it’s my body and I’ll do as I please” liberals, I hope she enjoys digging through rocks with a pickaxe.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:14 PM

I guess Hot Air will be shutting down then…..

Why would we do that? We’ll still be here if the Democrats win next November.

Allahpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:15 PM

If I had to vote between Hitler and Stalin I’d stay home too.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 2:45 PM

That’s precisely the choice we faced in WWII. But we were smart enough to choose Stalin, defeat Hitler first, then fight the Stalinists after. That’s a plan.

JiangxiDad on October 18, 2007 at 3:15 PM

LOL….think of the traffic!

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 3:16 PM

someone send these guys a book on basic arithematic for their “private meeting”

jp on October 18, 2007 at 3:16 PM

not sure what you mean by agreement on BC. Didn’t know my position was on it was up for grabs.

Apparently even though 70% of americans want something done, a lot of politicians on both sides don’t. That’s why nothing gets done. Having a new party that’s on your side on this issue wouldn’t do much.

? Dem humiliation ? If you have read any of my posts then you I expect the exact opposite. We be in trouble.

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 3:06 PM

I know what you expect, I’m telling you what I expect. Losing to a newbie would kill their “the american people are on our side” zeal. The republican party is already screwed so they don’t really have any expectations to be shattered.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:16 PM

As for Bloomberg, he is precisely the type to do this simply because it pleases/amuses him.

JiangxiDad on October 18, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Whoever lives in the area of this “private meeting” should pull a dem trick and protest it. Go out and wave signs with Ross Perot’s picture with Clinton along side. and highlight the other issues and pics of Conservative Judges Rudy says he’ll appoint.

jp on October 18, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Sorry Darth….I’ll stick with my Nixonian barbed wire and the GOP. JHC hizself could run on the third party ticket and I’d still vote for Nixon.

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 3:19 PM

What’s wrong with Tancredo or Hunter?

PRCalDude on October 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM

If rudy is elected, abortions will be made legal!

Arent they already illega?

Well yeah.

And have Reagan, Bush I or Bush II done anything to make them illegal?

Well no.

So what’s your problem?

It’s Rudy!!!one!!!111!!eleven!!one!111!

lorien1973 on October 18, 2007 at 3:22 PM

As for Bloomberg, he is precisely the type to do this simply because it pleases/amuses him.

JiangxiDad on October 18, 2007 at 3:18 PM

I agree. Like it’s a new hobby for him.

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:23 PM

What’s wrong with Tancredo or Hunter?

PRCalDude on October 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Nothing.

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Perfect opportunity AP. Crash the meeting. Convert them all to atheism.
Use that #1 persuasive argument. I don’t know what that is, never heard it.
But you must know it.
“I know there is no god because…”

Stephen M on October 18, 2007 at 3:24 PM

That’s precisely the choice we faced in WWII. But we were smart enough to choose Stalin, defeat Hitler first, then fight the Stalinists after. That’s a plan.

JiangxiDad on October 18, 2007 at 3:15 PM

After we beat Hitler we didn’t do jack about Stalin, we left him and his communist scum kill tens of millions of people, enslave half the world and bring it to economic ruin before it finally collapsed. On its own. And they stole atomic bomb plans from the US to boot. Where’s that thumb up picture of Bush that Allah runs sometimes? I’m afraid that this is a perfect analogy of what will happen if those of one mind with me give in: we’ll win and nobody is gonna do anything about abortion anymore than they’ve done until now. Thanks but no thanks.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 3:19 PM

If it makes you feel better I’m Canadian so I can’t vote in US elections anyway. I’m just trying to explain why some people don’t want to settle for just a pro-war liberal.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:25 PM

nobody is gonna do anything about abortion anymore than they’ve done until now.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Exactly what are you expecting to be done about abortion in the next President’s term? Just about nobody predicts Democrats losing significant ground in Congress, and even if the S.C. overturns Roe V. Wade, the decision simply reverts back to the states.

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Everybody who’s unhappy with Giullianni, and I’m one, should just throw their vote away on Hunter or Tancredo, or write them in if and when they don’t get the nomination.

If it comes down to a choice between Hill and Giullianni, well as Orianna Fallaci said about the last presidential election in Italy, “They’re both f$#$ing idiots!”

PRCalDude on October 18, 2007 at 3:29 PM

PRCalDude on October 18, 2007 at 3:29 PM

So instead of getting the lesser of the two evils, throw away your vote and subsequently get the worst of the two evils…

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Once again, people are NOT looking at the numbers.

The FACT of the matter is that fully 1/3 of the electorate is Unaffiliated, highest proportion of them to the parties in history.

I hear it time and agian from freinds and relatives… they are fed up with BOTH parties.

Dems are moving toward socialism, while earmarking our tax funds away… and the Reps, while saying they are for fiscal responsibility, are either as bad as the Dems, or are ineffective in fighting.

Both parties are so corrupt that its sickening… and yet neither will actualy do anything to fix it…

Reps have a convicted Gay troller in Congress… Dems have a guy who got caught with 90K in Cold bribery cash… and yet neither will do anything about it.

All the while… there is scandal after scandal having to do with campaign finances, which no one in government will even PROSECUTE!!!

There are a LOT of voters who have become “A Plaugue on both your houses” types of voters….

Stand by… this is going to get really ugly.

Romeo13 on October 18, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Huckabee’s already rejected the idea and/or possibility of running third party.

CP on October 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM

That’s precisely the choice we faced in WWII. But we were smart enough to choose Stalin, defeat Hitler first, then fight the Stalinists after. That’s a plan.

Not that it matters, but that’s not the most accurate description ever. Hitler chose Stalin, the West was the (temporary) beneficiary. And the US was invested in helping the UK form the start, it’s not like we were debating German vs Russia.

Exactly what are you expecting to be done about abortion in the next President’s term?

Judges, Judges, Judges.

Spirit of 1776 on October 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM

So instead of getting the lesser of the two evils, throw away your vote and subsequently get the worst of the two evils…

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:31 PM

How do you think pro-2A types get so much respect from the Repubelickans? It’s because they don’t show up to elections when they get screwed over. The Repubelickans learned real quick.

PRCalDude on October 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM

So instead of getting the lesser of the two evils, throw away your vote and subsequently get the worst of the two evils…

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Sigh… and this exact attitude is WHY people are doing this.

Your saying vote for evil… instead of putting up a candidate who is good!

Romeo13 on October 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Exactly what are you expecting to be done about abortion in the next President’s term? Just about nobody predicts Democrats losing significant ground in Congress, and even if the S.C. overturns Roe V. Wade, the decision simply reverts back to the states.

Bribe Democrat congressmen to vote for a constitutional amendment (there shouldn’t be need for one, but it’s better than nothin). I’d imagine some cold hard cash straight out of the freezer would suffice. Plus there are some pro-life Democrats. It doesn’t have to be a purely Republican issue.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Mr. Weyrich’s three stipulations do not sound very “Christian” to me, in fact they sound downright power hungry.

jeanie on October 18, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Judges, Judges, Judges.

Spirit of 1776 on October 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM

I don’t think there’s a single Republican candidate who wouldn’t appoint strict constructionist judges. And if the judge is too left-leaning, Republicans in Congress block the nomination.

As for Allah’s update: Huck’s not Conservative enough, either?

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:36 PM

If the social conservatives make a split from the Republicans maybe some of the Reagan Democrats will come back. I am sick and tired of the whining. Good bye and don’t let the door hit you in the arse on your way out. You will have no political power. If you want to accomplish something work within the system and work on reducing abortions, not elimintaing them. That is not going to happen. Get over yourself!

bopbottle on October 18, 2007 at 3:36 PM

I don’t think there’s a single Republican candidate who wouldn’t appoint strict constructionist judges. And if the judge is too left-leaning, Republicans in Congress block the nomination.

I agree with the first point. I think that’s the order of the day to get the nomination. As for the second, I’m not going to hold my breath. Nominations are not something the current crop of R’s have done worthy battle over.

Spirit of 1776 on October 18, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Romeo13 on October 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM

And who would that candidate be? Remember, he can’t only please, he has to have the ability to win over the Republican party and independents. He also has to have the ability to beat out the Clinton Machine & its media backing.

But that wasn’t even my point. My point is that if it comes down to Rudy and Hillary (the nomination process over), that’s where my comment came in.

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:38 PM

As for Allah’s update: Huck’s not Conservative enough, either?
amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Pastor Huck nonetheless. Maybe anti-amnesty is the burning fire in the breast of JD. Don’t know.

Spirit of 1776 on October 18, 2007 at 3:39 PM

If anyone can confirm the Democrats’ view of Republicans as stupid, it’s certain Republicans.

If “religious conservatives” block Giuliani and thus knowingly help elect Clinton (and thus, knowingly, give solace to the enemy in wartime) it will be our responsibility to expose them as neither religious nor conservative – merely, generously put, stupid.

Halley on October 18, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Your saying vote for evil… instead of putting up a candidate who is good!

Romeo13 on October 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM

its not that simple, politicians are realist and understand basic mathematics. To get elected president you have to convince over 60 Million people to go vote for you.

by and large, politicians are just reflecting and trying to gather a large coalition that can get them elected, in their stances. Thats why they do things they may not personally beleive in often, political pressures.

If Rudy nominates constructionist judges like Scalia/thomas/roberts/alito…..he will be effectively a Pro-Life President. Not only that, he’s on the right side of war on terror and Capitalism and free markets. he gets that stuff better than any of the other candidates I beleive.

the idea of giving Hillary the Whitehouse with a Dem Congress and Senate is insane and irrational.

jp on October 18, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Someone with clout, like AllahP, needs to start putting up Perot posters all over the place. That way we can bomb more aspirin factories.

Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 3:43 PM

What’s wrong with Tancredo or Hunter?

PRCalDude on October 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Well, for starters there’s the fact that they’ve demonstrated that they have exactly zero chance to win the primary elections and their chances in the general election wouldn’t be much better. That’s a pretty big “what’s wrong”.

Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 3:45 PM

If anyone can confirm the Democrats’ view of Republicans as stupid, it’s certain Republicans.

the problem is they don’t have a political IQ.

I for one think Romney probably really is socially conservative(because he’s mormon), but since he was in Mass. and a competent politician had to lie to get elected. The same exact thing Bill Clinton did in Arkansas and got the reputation, “Slick Willie”….these are good, professional politicians.

same is possible with Rudy, he never would’ve had a political career in NYC if he had taken pro-life positions….the real question is what he personally beleives and how big a thing it is to him, to ignore the political pressures that Social Cons would put on him as President. I’m thinking he’ll gladly nominate constructionist judges.

jp on October 18, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Game over, man.

Is this part of the same “game over” that has had AP predicting GOP abandonment of Iraq since last May? Or is it a different “game over?”

Karl on October 18, 2007 at 3:49 PM

I comment the fake priest politicians of the South for dooming the Republicans over one or two issues. Obviously if they don’t get every little thing they want they will throw tantrums like little babies.

Let them whine and scream and ruin our party. At least it may force the rest of the country to realize the Democrats are way too liberal for our style of living, even if it means 8 years of Hilary.

Stupidity like this has to have a payoff somehow.

Vincenzo on October 18, 2007 at 3:49 PM

jp on October 18, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Once again, same arguement.

Hold your nose and vote for our guy, because otherwise its all YOUR fault that the country goes to he11!

Rudi’s problems only start with abortion… that is only ONE of his problems (and not one I am even basing my oppostition to him on…).

You are asking the American voter to perpetuate the status quo… one that is NOT working.

Do you really think that a President who runs on a platform of being a Hillary slayer, with all the negative campaigning that is going to need, can work with a Dem controled Congress?

Do you really think a Rudi presidency would be GOOD for the country??? Cuase all I hear you saying is that it will be LESS BAD!

Sorry… I’ll vote for whoever I think at the time can do the BEST job for this country… and I think a LOT of the electorate is thinking just like I am…

Romeo13 on October 18, 2007 at 3:50 PM

And why exactly would Christian conservatives want Newt, after his own family failings.

What a disgrace. They should have let them secede back in the Civil War.

Vincenzo on October 18, 2007 at 3:50 PM

As for Allah’s update: Huck’s not Conservative enough, either?

amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Read the article- he’s a big government nanny stater who’s not terribly fiscally conservative. That shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Social cons may want a socially conservative candidate, but that doesn’t mean they’ll overlook someone who hasn’t adhered to other conservative principles.

Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Rudy is a Steve Forbes style Capitalist, contrasted to Hillary’s Marx.

its really a simple thing. To me, Free Trade and capitalism, is every bit as important as the War on Terro/Foreign Policy. Both have multi-generational consequences.

to me its a simple as “Capitalism vs. Socialism”

and strong war stance in which America is not the problem in the world, vs. whatever hillary views it as through her opinion polls.

jp on October 18, 2007 at 3:56 PM

to add to my last point, same for Federal Judges. Also a multi-generational consequence. Roberts and Alito will likely be on SCOTUS for 30 years each. Next POTUS gets atleast 2 nominations probably, who would you rather have appoint them: Hillary? or ABH(anybody but hillary) ?

and that is a Social Con issue, at its heart.

jp on October 18, 2007 at 4:04 PM

OT:

After we beat Hitler we didn’t do jack about Stalin, we left him and his communist scum kill tens of millions of people, enslave half the world and bring it to economic ruin before it finally collapsed. On its own.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 3:24 PM


Berlin Blockade

Korean War

Just to name the first two efforts…

One might argue (obviously in hindsight) that the policy of containment carried out during Stalin’s post WWII reign and those of his successors was monstrously insufficient, but the term “jack” is equally as monstrous in light of those who perished in the many battles against World Communism. And as to the assertion that the Soviet edifice fell on its own, this Cold Warrior finds it too laughable to even get angry over.

And since you’ve mentioned that you’re Canadian, I find it sad that you would term as “jack” the role that your countrymen played in the fight against Communism (see the two links and others).

baldilocks on October 18, 2007 at 4:04 PM

When it comes to issues such as abortion, special rights for homosexuals, open borders and all the other hot button, no one within the Christian coalition is going to pull a suicide pack and guarantee a Clinton in the White House. Nevah!

The Dems pander to the far left, but for Rudy to mirror that with the far right would be folly. Liberals have done a really good job painting conservatives as dangerous, and a majority the independents believe it.

Hening on October 18, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Hillary will be our next president and the dems will be able to ruin our military, our security and our families. How’s that idiots!!!!!!! Get it!!!

As long as they don’t pick up 10 senators there’s little chance of that happening. We’ll get four more years of the last year. They won’t get their agenda and we won’t get ours.

Of course that won’t change even if we do win the Presidency.

Sebastian on October 18, 2007 at 4:15 PM

If they do this, they had damned well better be satisfied with a Hillary presidency.

Because that will be the only result of this.

James Dobson on Laura Ingraham’s show this week denied that he would support a third party candidate, because they “don’t work”, in his words.

I really hope the other Christian leaders come this realization as well.

Push for a presidential and VP nominee that supports their values. That’s all well and good.

But don’t give away this election if they don’t get exactly what they want.

The alternative will be far worse for Christian values.

Hawkins1701 on October 18, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Yikes. No chance for Huck as POTUS or even as VP unless the Republicans are ready for a Willie Horton ad.

Mike Huckabee’s wishy-washiness is perhaps best exemplified in the story of Wayne Dumond, the most bizarre and tragic episode of the governor’s entire tenure. A few weeks after taking office, Gov. Huckabee announced his intention to free Mr. Dumond, who had served seven years of a life+20 sentence for the kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old girl. The following month, the governor met with the parole board; soon afterwards, the board voted to free Mr. Dumond on the condition that he move to another state.

Although he told National Review that he “executed more people than any governor in the history of” Arkansas, Gov. Huckabee insists that the “concept of Christian forgiveness requires that we keep open the process of parole” even for violent felons.

The parole board’s action made Mr. Dumond’s pardon application unnecessary, so Gov. Huckabee denied the pardon but sent him a letter affirming, “My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place.”

Mr. Dumond’s release was delayed because no other state would take the convicted rapist. After two and one-half more years, the parole board set him free in Arkansas. The following year, he moved to Missouri, where he sexually assaulted and murdered a 39-year-old woman.

As the predictable political fireworks burst all around him, Gov. Huckabee tried to hide behind the claim that he had denied Mr. Dumond’s pardon application. “My only official action was to deny his clemency,” Gov. Huckabee insists, defensively glossing over his oft-stated earlier preference for Mr. Dumond to go free.

Brat on October 18, 2007 at 4:17 PM

We’ll still be here if the Democrats win next November.

Allahpundit on October 18, 2007 at 3:15 PM

and it will be better because you’ll have that much more to mock. I’m certain that’s part of why the media wants a Rudy/Hillary campaign – much more sensational for ratings.

But really dude, if ever there has been a time for a third party candidate to win, it would be now. Blacks Christians aren’t going to just vote for Hillary because she shows up in black churches. Now they certainly won’t vote for a Republican in droves.

A third party Black conservative would beat Rudy and Hillary head to head – HANDS DOWN! (shudder to think, but maybe even Alan Keyes).

The polls already show 14% for ANY third party candidate. That’s unprecedented in history. 14% now can easily turn into a majority by election day. If the Republicans are going to leave conservatives, don’t expect conservatives to join in just because of the R next to the name.

ThackerAgency on October 18, 2007 at 4:17 PM

I really hope the other Christian leaders come this realization as well.

Push for a presidential and VP nominee that supports their values. That’s all well and good.

But don’t give away this election if they don’t get exactly what they want.

The alternative will be far worse for Christian values.

Hawkins1701 on October 18, 2007 at 4:16 PM

It doesn’t matter what the leaders do- most social cons don’t slavishly obey the will of religious leaders. There are a lot of voters for whom social issues- most importantly abortion- are their #1 priority, and they simply won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate.

People can whine about it all they want, call them stupid, whatever- it doesn’t change that reality.

Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 4:28 PM

In other words, Weyrich thinks social cons should be in it to win it, not just to make a show of withholding their vote from Rudy.

Please, Allah. If these guys could win a general election, they could nominate a candidate in the Republican primaries. Or, to put it another way, if they can’t win among Republicans, why should we think they could win a general election?

paul006 on October 18, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Berlin Blockade

Korean War

Just to name the first two efforts…

Which did what against STALIN? Oh yeah, nothing. They were efforts against the spread of communism, not Stalin in particular, and even if you count them as such they’re still very small (insignificant, in fact) compared to what should’ve been done: crush Stalin after Japan was defeated.

One might argue (obviously in hindsight) that the policy of containment carried out during Stalin’s post WWII reign and those of his successors was monstrously insufficient, but the term “jack” is equally as monstrous in light of those who perished in the many battles against World Communism. And as to the assertion that the Soviet edifice fell on its own, this Cold Warrior finds it too laughable to even get angry over.

Equally monstrous? Are you demented? The policy of containment doomed tens of millions of people to their deaths and cursed billions to poverty induced by an utterly demented economic policy, and you have the balls to call it “equally mosntrous” to someone saying that policy was insignificant?

And since you’ve mentioned that you’re Canadian, I find it sad that you would term as “jack” the role that your countrymen played in the fight against Communism (see the two links and others).

baldilocks on October 18, 2007 at 4:04 PM

I’ve had relatives die to communism (I’m of East European descent). They died for nothing on the grand scale. Brave actions are still insignificant if you achieve nothing. Whether you like it or not, real life depends on results, not wishes.

Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Rudy is a Steve Forbes style Capitalist flood the country with cheap serf labor Baron, contrasted to Hillary’s Groucho Marx.

MB4 on October 18, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Read the article- he’s a big government nanny stater who’s not terribly fiscally conservative. That shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Social cons may want a socially conservative candidate, but that doesn’t mean they’ll overlook someone who hasn’t adhered to other conservative principles.

Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Are you saying they’ve learned their lesson from GWB?

Dudley Smith on October 18, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Are you saying they’ve learned their lesson from GWB?

Dudley Smith on October 18, 2007 at 5:21 PM

I can only hope. However social cons are only going to compromise so much, and abortion isn’t one of those issues they’re going to be very flexible on. That someone is a social con doesn’t imply that they don’t also support other conservative principles as well- in fact, the opposite is likely true.

Huckabee gets some support based solely on social issues, but once his record is examined a bit more thoroughly by the general public (if he gains enough support for people to bother), his social con street cred won’t be enough to overcome some questionable aspects of his record- not after watching “compassionate conservative” Bush Jr. for the past 7 years.

Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Anything But Clinton’ Redux
The Republican candidates have a dim, skimpy road map to governance and are attempting to compensate with Hillary-bashing.

My conservative brethren in the op-ed commentariat have made a disquieting discovery: The Republican candidates for president are saying nothing that addresses the economic anxieties of the American middle class.

“The Democrats propose something” such as expanding health-care coverage for children or providing federal matching funds for 401(k) accounts for families of modest means, bemoaned Brooks, “and the Republicans have no alternative.” Gerson grumbled.

In fact, with the honorable exception of long-shot candidate Mike Huckabee, the Republican field seems content with an economic program that comes down to opposing whatever Hillary Clinton proposes. Rudy Giuliani, campaigning hard to convince the Republican base to overlook his heresies on such cultural hot buttons as abortion rights, seeks to win over the faithful by claiming the mantle of Hillary-Basher Club Champion. A tax credit for parents struggling to pay their children’s college tuition? Matching funds for 401(k)s? Baby bonds? Crazy notions all, not because of their substance — Rudy can’t be bothered with their substance — but because they were proposed by — get this — Hillary! The GOP crowds roar.

As a road map to governance, this is both dim and skimpy.

The Republicans’ problem isn’t just the silence of their candidates. It’s the silence of their ideology, which has neglected to notice that the world has changed.

Calling Newt, calling Newt!!

MB4 on October 18, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Calling Newt, calling Newt!!

MB4 on October 18, 2007 at 5:54

PM

I wish.

frreal on October 18, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Meh. I somehow got on Richard Viguerie’s email list.

All I’ve discovered from reading his screeds is that he’s a crank. I haven’t yet figured out who’s conservative enough to pass his test.

Even Fred Thompson, arguably the most conservative of the front-runners, isn’t conservative enough for him.

Slublog on October 18, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Meh. I somehow got on Richard Viguerie’s email list.

All I’ve discovered from reading his screeds is that he’s a crank. I haven’t yet figured out who’s conservative enough to pass his test.

Even Fred Thompson, arguably the most conservative of the front-runners, isn’t conservative enough for him.

The guy is a crank, ZERO credibility.
Slublog on October 18, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Gatordoug on October 18, 2007 at 8:26 PM

Fools. All.

Griz on October 18, 2007 at 11:18 PM

What??!! They need to shut up about Huckabee now, I’m sick of these charletons, all of them.

Mike Huckabee is a decent Christian, what’s their damn problem with him??!! This is like the Twilight Zone!

This is exactly what I mean about these fools, give them an inch and they want to take the mile.

They are phony through and through and they are going to give away this election if they don’t get exactly what they want.

They care about the GOP my ass, I’m sick of their insubordination, they better back off. Mike Huckabee is a much more genuine and sincere Christian than any of them could ever hope to be.

AprilOrit on October 19, 2007 at 1:06 AM

The problem is this – they want to use the GOP to get what they want, nothing more, nothing less. And after they have used the party, chewed it up and spit it out they’re gone.

But not before they’ve suceeded in slandering all the candidates on their way out, even the real Christian.

I think it’s about time it stopped.

AprilOrit on October 19, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Your saying vote for evil… instead of putting up a candidate who is good!

Romeo13 on October 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM

So there is a perfect conservative.

Who is it?

csdeven on October 19, 2007 at 1:15 AM

So there is a perfect conservative.

Who is it?

Yeah, I’m dying to know who these charletons think is worthy.

Again, they are not here to serve the good of the party.

If you cannot serve the party then perhaps the party is not for you, move on. I hear The Constitution Party is ready willing and able to meet your outlandishly rigid judgement and your windbag requests.

AprilOrit on October 19, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Yeah, I’m dying to know who these charletons think is worthy.

I’m just waiting for one of them to convince me their point of view is correct.

So far, all I’ve heard from the social con leaders is threats.

Slublog on October 19, 2007 at 8:01 AM

So far, all I’ve heard from the social con leaders is threats.

Well don’t you know that’s all they’ve got? They have been threatening everyone for years and it’s high time The GOP put a stop to it.

They do not serve The Party, The Party is here for them to serve it, not the other way around. That’s the problem, members of The GOP do not love and respect The GOP and care about The GOP and work to advance the GOP. They use The GOP.

They are only interested in advancing their own special interests and raping and pillaging The GOP in the process.

The pecking order goes like this –

1). Love & serve your higher power
2). Love & serve your country
3). Love & serve The GOP

Or get out.

AprilOrit on October 19, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I hear The Constitution Party calling….

AprilOrit on October 19, 2007 at 12:52 PM