Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on December 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
 |
|
posted at 10:00 pm on December 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
|
|
GreenRoom
Hot Links
- Right Channels
- Left Channels
- War on Terror
- Cartoons/Satire
- Audio podcasters
- Entertainment
- Industry/Internet TV
- Hangouts
- Talkers
- Hot Air Affiliates
Feeds
© 2006-2009 Hot Air Network, LLC | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use
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:
Does Huckabee think sounding like Hil Clinton will HELP him?
Doug on December 16, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I have always thought that the people of Iowa are some of the smartest in the nation so until they vote en masse for cHuckles I will keep believing that.
Bill C on December 16, 2007 at 10:05 PM
OT: Dan Fogelberg died. :-(
baldilocks on December 16, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Whaa?
soundingboard on December 16, 2007 at 10:15 PM
There’s no shortage of evidence that shows a little enforcement has a considerable effect.
Start enforcing the law and illegal aliens get the clue and move on.
Speakup on December 16, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Sorry, I meant to put that in another thread that had already gone OT. Please resume Huckabee stuff.
baldilocks on December 16, 2007 at 10:18 PM
I refuse to get on the “trash Huckabee” bandwagon which has come to be HA’s sole mission the minute the Rudy Kool-aid was no longer satisfying.
Mike Huckabee is not my candidate because he gives off too much of a Jimmy Carter vibe. He’s weak on the social issues I care about and has zero credibility when talking about international relations. That being said, I have problems with any candidate that wants it both ways. Illegal immigration is a legal status not an “attack on families.” Why should these definitions change just because illegals were able to pump out a citizen or two before getting caught?
My solution is to establish a new catagory of “immigrant” that gives credit the fact that some children might be American citizens by dint of the fact that they exited the womb while on American soil. You’d still deport the whole damned family but factor in the fact that they reproduced while living here. No anchor babies, just credit points in the immigration lottery- to be phased out over the next twenty years when all these brats born to stay American reach the age of majority.
Beyond that, shut down the whole illegal immigration machine by making our Southern border secure.
highhopes on December 16, 2007 at 10:21 PM
So a month ago the Huckster wanted to give them scholarships, now he wants to deport them. How can anyone believe a word this guy says? I know, he’s God’s Chosen Snake Oil Salesman, but still.
ReubenJCogburn on December 16, 2007 at 10:21 PM
highhopes – ?
This site was never for Rudy. Its never been for or against anyone. This site does not have an candidate driven agenda… there are people here from all camps trying to see conservatism … conserved.
amend2 on December 16, 2007 at 10:29 PM
How come they are so visible then?
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Of course we have to deport them. One day their parents are lawn-care workers with a couple of anchor babies, and the next thing you know they’ve flown their lawnmower in to a crowded skyscraper.
pedestrian on December 16, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Oh! Laughing out loud at that one amend! ;-0
At one point this past week, Huckabee had 14 active threads where we could trash the man.
I honestly think the moderators here want us to chose between Rudy and Mitt because they are the most in line with the secular humanist agenda. I have no problem with that except that they have not been honest. There has been an excessive number of threads that essentially attack Christians for being Christians. Of the two, they also attack Mitt for being a Mormon. That leads to the FACT that HA has already endorsed Rudy over all the other GOP candidates. Shame on them for doing so and shame on you for not seeing that!
highhopes on December 16, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Word.
I want to hear from Rick Warren, which policy position caused him to direct his followers toward Hickabee — the one from a month ago, or the one from yesterday?
Jaibones on December 16, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Not just unfair, but completely untrue. Completely. Bryan is a self-professed Christian with little apparent interest in secular humanism. Allah is an atheist with little apparent interest in a Hillary Presidency, further infected by the diseased Clenis.
I don’t really care to hear where you think you got that idea; I just wanted to get on record as pointing out that you’re nuts. I think I was first!
Jaibones on December 16, 2007 at 10:46 PM
PS The Huckster is a douche.
Jaibones on December 16, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I disagree, I think HA’s been harsh on everyone, Huck’s probably gotten it the worst because he would be such a disaster.
Bad Candy on December 16, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Usually I would NEVER link to this site, but if this has any truth, maybe evangelicals could rally around this to STOP supporting this buffoon:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/16/huckabee-squashed-charges-against-his-son-for-stoning-hanging-dog/
muyoso on December 16, 2007 at 10:50 PM
The first in this thread, anyway. Yes, Bryan is such a secular humanist that he’s a deacon at his church.
ReubenJCogburn on December 16, 2007 at 10:56 PM
OK 2 thoughts about this one.
#1 – Wouldn’t his deportation plans of kids that were born here not stand the test of the law? Don’t we have a ‘born here and ya a citizen’ law?
#2 – It doesn’t match up with his “my soul wouldn’t let me do it” charade.
Just my 2 cents.
lsutiger on December 16, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Yeah…after seeing this on the front page just now, I was going to say something like “Is there some kind of HotAir conspiracy against the Huckmeister?” Seems like there’s been a lot of anti-Huck slamming going on…
And I too am no big fan of Huckabee…but there’s a lot of commenters here who say they’d rather vote for Hillary if Huck gets the GOP nod. But again I say “It’s early yet!”
Huck, IMHO, won’t get the nod. He may even win in Iowa, but not NH (me thinks Mitt has that one)
I’m a die-hard Fred Head…and really hope he can pull it out. But there really does seem to be a huge attempt to discredit Huckabee here on a daily basis. He’s not the best GOP candidate…by far….but he’s not the devil either.
Just sayin’….
JetBoy on December 16, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Seriously, have you been here long? Asleep maybe? It was just a few months ago when we Rudy supporters were complaining about the multiple frontpage posts critical (I even called it attacking) of Rudy.
Hot Air for Rudy? Seriously?
amerpundit on December 16, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Oh, and why is Huckabee all of a sudden getting so much attention and criticism on Hot Air? Because he’s the frontrunner.
amerpundit on December 16, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Brother, which blog have you been readin’?
Man, you have the blinders on too tight!
BTW, I think Romney and Thompson are the only viable candidates. One is a great business leader, the other is a great conservative. Either way, ain’t any dirt on either of ‘em!
lsutiger on December 16, 2007 at 11:06 PM
@ amerpundit on December 16, 2007 at 11:06 PM
And he is a guarantee that the democrats win in 08. I would NEVER vote for Huckabee. He is in SO many ways worse than even Hillary. I will vote for a third party, and MAYBE even a democrat (if Obama gets the nod) if Huck is the R candidate. Sorry, but I am not contributing to the whole “take back America for Jesus” charade.
muyoso on December 16, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Huckarama- the new contortionist from Hope.
profitsbeard on December 16, 2007 at 11:11 PM
@ lsutiger on December 16, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Romney RUINED himself for me with his comments on the second amendment today. Sorry, but I am not voting for someone who supports a ban on ANY guns, especially something as stupid as the modern day interpretation of “assault rifles”. He was my #2 choice, now he is right BEHIND Rudy in last place.
muyoso on December 16, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Nothing the Huckster says is based in reality. It’s all about getting the nomination and afterwards the general. He reminds me so much of Bill Clinton I feel like I’ve gone back in time. Bill even hid his wife the first few months. Now we know why, eh?
Griz on December 16, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Oh, I forgot. GO FRED.
Griz on December 16, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Bye bye Huck’
Fred is by default the strongest.
Ugly on December 16, 2007 at 11:45 PM
fiXXrd
Ugly on December 16, 2007 at 11:48 PM
The devil? No.
But he would be a DISASTER.
I truly believe Hillary,
OsamObama, or even the silky pony could beat him in the general election.edgehead on December 16, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Oh, and why is Huckabee all of a sudden getting so much attention and criticism on Hot Air? Because he’s the frontrunner.
amerpundit on December 16, 2007 at 11:06 PM
That makes perfect sense. trash your canidiates before the KOS kids can do it. First McCain then Fred, then Rudy and Mitt now Huck. Yes it makes perfect sense. All conservative blogs trash all your canidates so this way we save KOS the work. How about we point out the good points of those running? No that would be to easy. Let’s trash everyone so we are fair and balanced. I for one am getting kind of sick of this trashing of not only the Rep canidates but also the Dem canidates. whatever happened to if you can’t say anything nice about someone don’t say it at all?
Any Rep President would be better than any Dem President since the dems went socialist. So even a Huckabee President is better than a Hillary President. I will vote for the REP nominee (even if it means holding my nose for Rudy). I personally like Fred as the compromise canidate between Mitt and Rudy’s liberalism, McCain’s get along to get along wiht the Dems mindset, and huckabee’s liberal/religious conservatism. However any and all of them is better than any Dem. I think we are forgetting that fact. RR would be rolling in his grave if he could see what his party has become. Bickering like Dems.
unseen on December 17, 2007 at 12:10 AM
@ unseen on December 17, 2007 at 12:10 AM
We are talking about electing a PRESIDENT of the USA here, not a school mascot. “If you can’t say anything nice, dont say anything at all”???? Are you serious? You want only nice things said about all the candidates? And dont you think its better that WE as republicans, vette our candidates to pick the strongest one, instead of just sitting back and holding hands talking about how great all of our nominees our, as we elect someone like Huckabee who will be routed by ANYONE running against him?
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 12:20 AM
edgehead on December 16, 2007 at 11:51 PM
How do you figure that? No Rep is going to win the Northeast period it’s not going to happen. even Rudy. That leaves the South, Midwest, Mountian, and West. The west coast is lost to the REP anyway you slice it. So that leaves the Southwest, Midwest, Mountain and South. Huckabee would carry the South. Including Southern Ohio and a large part of Western PA. The Midwest as polls show in Iowa that Huckabee can run a strong race in the midwest. This would include Michagan and Minnasota where Christian vaules are still strong. So That basically leaves the Mountian states in play and Huckabee if he is stronger than the DEM on immigration and taxes should carry those states. Thus Huckabee or any REP has a very good chance of winning the race. If on the other hand say Rudy gets the nod a good percentage of the South comes into play for the DEMS. The Northeast will never be in play for Rudy and if it is Bloomberg will enter the race to give it to the DEMS.
So what does Rudy bring to the table in terms of states? Nothing. Mitt can at least bring the mountian states, maybe some of the Mid Atlantic into the fold. McCain could deliver some of the Southwest and Mountain states, And Fred can lock up the South and some of the Midwest. Even possiblly OHIO and Western PA. But Rudy would be the diaster not Huckabee, not McCain, Mitt or Fred because he brings nothing and takes away the strongest base the REPs have.
unseen on December 17, 2007 at 12:21 AM
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 12:20 AM
vetting means more than throwing bombs at the candidates. Vetting means figuring out where they stand on the issues, what they want to do, their plans for the country. What we have been engaged in is not vetting it’s a popularity contest. And yes why should we be the ones to tear down our guys. Let the enemy tear down your guys don’t do the work for them. This is insane. We should be building up all candidates that are REPs. We should be focusing on the positive not the negative. While we should mention the negative we should not dwell on it in a fit of navel gazing. Mention the negative and move on. Play up the best of every candidate. Play on the diferrence between the parties not the Candidates. It is not our job to employ personal destruction upon our guys. They are not the enemy, the dems are. When we figure that out maybe we can figure out how to beat the real enemy the DEMS.
Huckabee is not my first pick but he has some good ideas, the fair tax, alternative energy, a different direction on forgein policy, some morals within society (i.e family vaules), anti abortion
while he has some issues with crime, immigration.
where does he stand on the 2nd? What is his reocrd on judge appointments? Did he leave his state better or worse? Did he help rebuild his states roads? bridges? schools? Does he support a strong defense? Will he fund defense spending? Will he cut it? We he keep Bush’s policy on faith based groups intact? what is his record on working with DEMs? will he be able to reach compromise and help bring this great country together agian or will he tear it more apart? Why are none of these questions being asked? Why instead of policy debates we get anti christian bashing? Talk of doom and easy Dem victory. Let’s have a discussion about policy, style, and plans not this unending smear attack on all our candidates.
unseen on December 17, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Rudy would be a disaster, but Huck would be too. Yeah, he’ll get big support in the South, but he’d be shaky out West, I’m not talking the left coast, I’m talking the “leave the hell alone” wing out there in the Southwest and inland West. Huck is big gov’t, Fred would fare much better out there.
As for the Northeast, there’s a strong libertarian streak still in places like NH, and once they get the bug out of their ass about Fred snubbing the NH debate and get in general, I think a possibility exists that they’ll get onboard.
Its not just Western PA you need, you need central and rural, and you need a little bit of the Philly suburbs *barf*. Huck’s Jesusy populist rhetoric isn’t gonna sell in the douchebaggy elitist Philly suburbs. Fred’s Federalism might however.
Huck is as weak as Rudy, but for the opposite reason, not to mention the dmage either would do to the coalition, and I think Mitt might have just ate it on this recent interview. Fred’s gotta be the guy…
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 12:43 AM
As the information of Huckabee’s past political actions came to light, and after the 2 last debates I’ve become a Thompson supporter again.
Go Fred go!
DannoJyd on December 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Huck’s past history as governor, past position on issues, and present position on those same issues as a presidential candidate, has been discussed in depth here, as well as his campaign style and support base. I would suggest it has been healthy and informative for anyone of an objective mindset.
a capella on December 17, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 12:43 AM
I agree Fred is the best candidate to win. He is my first pick. All I’m saying is that Huck would not be as bad as Rudy. For somereason Northeaterns think Rudy could put NY,NJ, CT etc in play. That isn’t going to happen and if it does Bloomberg has made it clrea he would enter the race to destory that chance.
Living in Central and Western PA for 2 years huck has a good chance of winnig those area if he loses some of the preaching and builds up some of the family vaules. Eastern Ohio, souteastern OH and WV all would be good for Huck. Yes the Mountain region would be tough for Huck but I think if huck took a tough stand on immigration VS a DEM he could win out there too.
Like I said I agree Fred is the best compromise candidate and has the best chance of winning nationally butalso Huck is not as big of a disater has the Mitt and Rudy people want people to think.
unseen on December 17, 2007 at 12:50 AM
a capella on December 17, 2007 at 12:47 AM
yes I’ve picked up bits and pieces (most negative) of huck’s past. But it can’t be all bad. He did keep getting reelcted in a very RED state but than Clinton got reelected in that state too. I just want to know his views on policy more than I want to know the personal attacks.
unseen on December 17, 2007 at 12:54 AM
I agree that people who think Rudy puts NY NJ into play are dreaming, as for PA, Huck would NEVER win, he’s just too Jesusy. Even in a place like North Central, where I am, people are religious, but don’t tend to be loud about it like Huck.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Unseen, you’re missing it though, the problem with Huck goes beyond the election, it makes it look like the social cons own the party, win or lose (probably lose), and fiscal cons, small gov’t types, libertarians and maybe hawks will be alienated.
Rudy does the opposite, alienating social cons and gunowners.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 1:00 AM
It seems to me that there are basicly 2 ways of dealing with illegal immigration. Either by granting amnesty otherwise known as immigration reform or you deport those who you identify as being here illegally.
Huckabee initially said he favored amnesty just like many other candidates did. Of course there was an uproar and I think the people were heard, loud and clear, that we opposed amnesty. Did the candidates listen? Did they heed the voices of the people? The ones that have changed their policy did.
I don’t know about you but I want a President that will change his policies to represent our views. So why are some of you complaining when one of them does?
Guardian on December 17, 2007 at 1:08 AM
I have social conservative values, but I place priority on economic and security issues when choosing my federal representation. I can tell you for a certainty that Bad Candy is right. I and others like me feel alienated by this social-con/evangelical hijacking of the party that is evidenced by the Huckabee surge. I feel like they’re a giant wing of our party willing to throw the rest of us under the church bus for the sake of electing the most religious guy they can find. They’re just sticking their collective tongues out at the rest of us, flaunting the fact that we can’t nominate or elect anyone without them. But it’s scary, scary stuff for fiscal conservatives, who see this huge economic crisis coming and the louder we shout, the more the so-cons cover their ears and sing “Lalalala, not listening!” I don’t think analysts who are warning of a serious party schism are being hyperbolic or melodramatic this time.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 1:12 AM
How about >> if they’ve got a job and have bought a home give them an expediant path towards citizenship. If not off you go. By working off existing waiting lists, let 4 or 5 times as many in legally, not neccessarily all hispanic. If an illegal is captured as a criminal then instant deportation. If they are in prison keep them there and then off they go. Someone is going to have to meet in the middle eventually.
Griz on December 17, 2007 at 2:13 AM
I’m the same way, with a strong small gov’t bent…I hate Nanny-Stating.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM
Yeah, I feel like we’re sitting on a giant powder keg.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Small government–absolutely. That’s why I put my social values last on my list in choosing my government reps. I actually want the government out of social issues. I don’t think the federal government needs to stick its nose into 99% of social issues.
Economically, I’m again in favor of the government getting the heck out of it as much as possible. Let me keep more of my money and I’ll generate more revenue by investing it and spending it my way. Curtail entitlements in a huge way before they bust the economy. Free enterprise, free enterprise, free enterprise. Etc, etc.
The only place I want the government to be big, powerful, and expensive is in military/security. That’s one of the only things we citizens and the free market probably can’t do ourselves as well as the federal government can.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 2:38 AM
Aero, supra:
Your comments are spot on. What’s happening here — and most Republican sense it, if only vaguely — is that the wheels are coming off the GOP coalition. For thirty years, we’ve held together disparate groups who wouldn’t belong to the same party if America had a multi-party parliamentary system.
For a long time, the Cold War united us. More recently, the war on terror has united us. But with the Soviet empire gone, and the memory of 9/11 fading, our differences are coming to the fore. For crying out loud, I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay urbanite. I have no earthy business in the same party as James Dobson.
Of course, none of the GOP’s various factions are strong enough to elect a president on their own. But each of them can play spoiler. If Rudy gets the nomination, the social cons say they’ll sit out. If Huckabee gets the nomination, the South Park types say they’ll sit out. Both groups are probably telling the truth, which means the Republican nominee cannot win the general election.
Though they have problems of their own, I think you have to conclude that the Democrats are well-positioned for ‘08 and beyond.
paul006 on December 17, 2007 at 3:01 AM
There are also those in the middle that will sit out if either one of those two gets the nom.
Gianni on December 17, 2007 at 3:09 AM
Unless the “progressives” go nuts and split off from the Dems at the same time we pop. But I don’t think they will because they’re not as over-ripe as we are yet. Some day they might, but for now, they’re poised to take power for a generation or more to come, so getting a divorce would be the height of stupidity for them. Of course, it’s the height of stupidity for us, too, but I think it’s coming eventually no matter what we do. Even if we suddenly change course and nominate someone acceptable to most of us, like Fred Thompson, it’ll all come to a head again at the next election, and the next one, and the next one, until we decide who gets the house and the kids and finally go our separate ways.
Maybe I’m wrong–I hope I’m wrong–but I do not feel reassured right now. Everyone’s threatening–quite sincerely it would seem–to stay home and pout rather than do their part to stop socialists from taking control for the next several decades.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 3:29 AM
What are we supposed to do if the choice is between a socialist and a socialist though? Makes it hard to keep a socialist out.
Gianni on December 17, 2007 at 3:35 AM
Heh. Good point, I suppose. It’s late and I’m tired, and I guess my anti-Huck bias just came through. I’m only really upset with the ones who say they’ll stay home if Huck’s NOT the nominee. I actually don’t think Huck will get the nomination, but I think enough disappointed Huck supporters will stay home in protest that we’ll lose the general as a result (it only takes a few hundred in the right state to throw an election these days). And the schism will be official at that point. I don’t know how the party recovers from a faction that large and integral to the party’s success rejecting the party’s official nominee.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 3:41 AM
Well Huck is one of the socialists so heh. No matter who won, Huck or the Democrat, conservatives lose.
Gianni on December 17, 2007 at 3:54 AM
Sheep in wolves clothing
Halley on December 17, 2007 at 6:08 AM
Unless Huckabee is a complete idiot (which a case can of course be made for), then he doesn’t expect any sort of compliance. That’s pretty much the point of any ridiculous immigration plan.
Lehosh on December 17, 2007 at 6:12 AM
There seems to be more shadow than sunlight in this part of the country.
Sorry Huck, I don’t buy it. You have already made your position clear on this subject.
conservnut on December 17, 2007 at 7:14 AM
aero on December 17, 2007 at 3:41 AM
Right on aero. Both parties are already dead in the water. The name of the game is “who can we fool.” It’s a farce not to realize that.
Griz on December 17, 2007 at 7:44 AM
From the Real Clear Politics article:
I read that as a “yes.” In other words, kids who are here illegally and in school – the same kids that Huckabee sought to provide additional opportunity to as governor and who defended that policy by saying we’re a “better country” than to punish kids for the actions of their parents – would be taken out of school and deported.
TOM BEVAN, an obvious ‘bleeding heart liberal’, needs to be reminded that in the 60’s President Eisenhower did exactly that by causing the deportation of 3 million illegals – children and all.
Eisenhower’s process was simple. He began by rounding up only a few thousand illegals. The rest, seeing what was happening, left the country voluntarily.
Whether 12 or 20 million, Eisenhower’s process could be used today.
pocomoco on December 17, 2007 at 8:08 AM
This should tell you the true state of the GOP when their frontrunner is . . . Huckabee? The Republic is in deep trouble.
rplat on December 17, 2007 at 8:13 AM
The Hot Air Moderators are Secular Humanists: False
Moderators implicitly endorse Rudy: False
If one supports Rudy or Romney one is in line with the Secular Humanist agenda: False
Christians at Hot Air are constantly under attack by moderators: False
Romney is attacked for being a Mormon: True
Which proves that even a stopped watch that is right twice a day beats this clueless analysis.
Jeez.
Buy Danish on December 17, 2007 at 8:35 AM
aero on December 17, 2007 at 1:12 AM
And this is different from the Rudy supports how? They basically slapped the social cons in the face. No if we want to heal the party. A Fred or a Mitt is the best hope for that. Rudy is unaceptable to a large part of the party. Huck appears unacceptable to another large part of the party. Therefore if we are adults about this we would choose a Fred or a Mitt. McCain is also unacceptable to a large part of the party. Remember without the social cons we would never win another election. While without the Northeasterns and Rino’s we would never win the Congress back.
unseen on December 17, 2007 at 8:39 AM
Whoever made the original connection between Carter and Huckabee was on the money. Here’s an evangelist wanting to be the president and tripping over his faith like it keeps getting in the way. He sure doesn’t wear it very naturally, and he’s willing to say anything to score votes it seems.
Hening on December 17, 2007 at 8:42 AM
Eh, you’re right. The Rudy side of it is very similar in effect. I’m more upset about the Huck side of it because Huck’s a social liberal and I can tolerate that a lot less than Rudy’s social liberalism. I’d rather have a fiscal con/social lib than a social con/fiscal lib. In my mind, the latter is far more dangerous to our country’s future and my children’s and grandchildren’s well-being.
But you are right that at this point I’d rather see Fred as our nominee than either Huckabee or Giuliani. I would vote for Mitt if necessary, too.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 8:48 AM
Oops, meant Huck’s a fiscal liberal. You know what I meant. (Didn’t sleep much last night, as you can tell from my time stamps.)
aero on December 17, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Putting myself in the place of an evangelical voter in Iowa, I’d be curious about this last minute conversion. What type of conversation did the pastor have with God that led to it? Also, how did God justify the deportations to Huckabee? It would take a load off my mind.
JiangxiDad on December 17, 2007 at 8:50 AM
aero on December 17, 2007 at 3:29 AM
I disagree. The problem is not that social cons want the government in their lives telling us how to live. It is the opposite. They want government out of their lives as much as the fical small government types. This includes having the government tell them when to pray, what they can put in their courthouses, what their kids learn in school, telling their daughters it’s ok to kill their children. etc. The way to keep the party together is to have smaller government. what do I care if South carolina want to stop abortions, have school prayer, and teach their kids the word of God. In the same breath what do I care if NY wants to kill their own children, teach the kids materalism, and teach that god is a fantasy created to control society?
It is none of my concern. I am concerned about what my local school district does, and if my local town opens up an abortion clinic. Federlism solves many of the parties problems. The federal government should not be telling people how to live. Freedom means choosing your own way of life. You get the federal government out of social issues and the majority of social cons will be thankful. You get the federal government out of americans wallets and most fical cons would be happy. Basically if you get the government out of our lifes most Reps would be happy. that’s how you keep the party together. smaller gov that follows the founding documents. Huck and Rudy don’t want that. Fred SEEMS to want that. Mitt? I’m not sure. McCain no.
unseen on December 17, 2007 at 8:52 AM
aero on December 17, 2007 at 8:48 AM
I understand what your saying. I would rather have a conservative that believed in freedom and that understood that the government was the problem not the solution. Any type of liberlism be it fiscal or social is a negative to me.
unseen on December 17, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Actually, you don’t disagree with me at all. I’m a social con who wants government to get out of social issues. I’m also a fiscal con who wants the government out of the economy as much as possible. That’s why I don’t like Huckabee–he uses taxpayers’ money to start intrusive social programs. That’s the worst of both worlds to me.
I used to be a Rudy supporter, but I can’t bear to see the party fracturing like this, so I’ve switched to Fred.
And by the way, many social cons are NOT small government types like you’re describing. They DO want the federal government to legislate social issues. They DO want the fed gov’t to tell people how they should live. Abso-friggen-lutely they do. Don’t think that because you and I (and the majority of HotAir readers, I suspect) value small government that that’s the way the majority of the party is in real life. Those who put social values first are way past my comfort zone in terms of what they think the federal government can and should do regarding social values.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Comment pages: