unseen on December 17, 2007 at 8:52 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Huck’s a social liberal

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.)

unseen on December 17, 2007 at 8:39 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The current system forces people into the shadows and into hiding.

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.

I also think Huckabee is being either disingenuous or naive by arguing that his “report and deport” plan is going to be better than the current system, which “forces people into the shadows and into hiding.” What sort of compliance does he expect?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

There are also those in the middle that will sit out if either one of those two gets the nom.

I don’t think analysts who are warning of a serious party schism are being hyperbolic or melodramatic this time.

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.

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

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.

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!”

Yeah, I feel like we’re sitting on a giant powder keg.

aero on December 17, 2007 at 1:12 AM

I’m the same way, with a strong small gov’t bent…I hate Nanny-Stating.