I said they have less power than ever before. See Rather, Dan, for just one example. Even legacy media is now using the internet to deliver news, and as more and more people start using that, they are being exposed to alternative news sources. That’s one thing that’s going in our direction, and will continue to, no matter who is President because the technology is taking over.

Laura on January 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM

I know you said they have less power… but I proved you wrong with my example of personal feelings versus broad views, which are based on information handed down from the MSM.

Global warming is bowing to global cooling even as we speak.

More proof. If we weren’t under the boot of the MSM we wouldn’t have to worry about “hysteria”, we’d have a well informed public that understood this is completely natural. And I wouldn’t go as far as to say we’re in the midst of global cooling yet, though that group of Russian scientists has been saying it is about to begin for a couple of years. Global warming is crap, but let’s just watch it happen.. and hope that someone has the balls to jail people like Gore and RFK Jr. when the truth is revealed.

BTW, Fox News reported earlier that Huck even wants to deny citizenship to the children of illegals. Again, this is a totally different position than folks like Hillary and Ted Kennedy have when they show up at immigration rallies, speaking Spanish and promising citizenship. Once again, I don’t like Huck, but comparing him to the Dems is really unfair… especially when you add in the simple point of “morals” which the Democrats lack completely. Declining morals, without question, is slowly leading us down a bad road.

Sorry, you’re just wrong… the media controls much more than people realize, and that is perfect proof of it.

I said they have less power than ever before. See Rather, Dan, for just one example. Even legacy media is now using the internet to deliver news, and as more and more people start using that, they are being exposed to alternative news sources. That’s one thing that’s going in our direction, and will continue to, no matter who is President because the technology is taking over.

Global warming is bowing to global cooling even as we speak. Within ten years, that will be the new hysteria – and it’s the fifth global climate scare since 1895. The brakes are being put on the Goreacle already – for example it was reasonably well publicized that 2007 was not, in fact, the warmest year on record. I’m very familiar with the NAU (former Bircher). I have every reason to believe, based on Huck’s past behavior, that he is as much of a threat as any Dem in that regard. Huck raised taxes $500 million in Arkansas, and he’ll do it again.

No, he’s not afraid to tie terror to Islam – thus screwing up a carefully contrived balance that will move Pakistan and Turkey over to the side of our enemies. Ever see a Christmas and Easter Catholic defend his faith? He’s more rabid than the guy who goes to confession every week, even though he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. We’ll have millions of new Rage Boys.

I guess the one thing we can agree on is to hope and pray he’s not the nominee. As much as I detest McCain I could even vote for him. Huck’s the only one I absolutely will not pull the lever for.

And I also see that even with a Republican in office right now, we’re doing next to nothing to prevent a future attack. We’re not cleaning up the CIA, prosecuting leakers, and we folded on some important programs. Because no matter who is in office, the further you get from an attack, the less people think security matters.

Laura on January 8, 2008 at 1:28 AM

We’ve wrapped up at least a few dozen terrorists plotting here, and Bush pushed the “warrantless wiretapping” (not sure what the latest is on that) for quite a while against a lot of pressure.

I think we are under less control from the media than ever before, and that situation is improving every day. As for the economy, you get a Dem in office and presto! chango! The economy is great and it’s all sweetness and light, baby.

Is that why 84% of the public are happy with their lives, while an extreme majority thinks everything is going wrong? Same with the economy… While the economy boomed for the past few years polls consistently showed an extreme majority had a negative view of the economy, while at the same time an extreme majority were happy with their own finances. Sorry, you’re just wrong… the media controls much more than people realize, and that is perfect proof of it. How can everyone’s finances be so good, yet they think the economy sucks? Because the media tells them it does. How can almost everyone be happy with their lives, yet think everything is going wrong? Because the media tells them it is. And by the way, studies have proven that Democrat Presidents get FAAAAAAAR better media coverage of their economies (good or bad) than Republican Presidents do. When they have crappy economies, it doesn’t even get nearly the negative coverage good Republican economies do.

What about the “global warming” generation being brainwashed as we speak? Look at what passes for 12-16 year old entertainment on MTV now – Whores who got famous on Myspace and make out with both guys and girls and make them do weak immitations of Fear Factor… oh, and other gay dating shows… oh, and “Date my mom”, in which slutty moms try to pimp out their even sluttier daughters, etc. etc. Are these future voters going to have an “awakening” and come around? Plus add in all the Mexicans who will be voting Dem. You can say Huck will be as bad because he’s not the biggest border warrior, but I don’t believe he’s got the same openly stated goals as the Dems.

At the end of the day, how different is Huck from the Democrats? He’s in favor of all those things you listed. He’s said so, to one degree or another.

I don’t believe he wants to raise taxes… in fact he’s a “Fair Tax” guy. I highly doubt he paints Europe as a model for how we should be (as the Dems constantly do). And he is also not afraid to tie the issue of terrorism to Islam, like the Dems are. etc. etc. Please, don’t make me try to defend him anymore, because I want nothing to do with him, and I highly doubt he’ll be the nominee. The choice was just him or Obama (or any other Dem for that matter).

We recovered pretty quickly from Carter, and we were dealing with, let’s see, Iran, Russia, the PLO, and a way worse economy that Reagan quickly got up to speed. Not to mention Abscam, problems with Cuba (Mariel boat lift), the Unabomber, the Muslim Brotherhood was trying to assassinate people and there were terror bombings in Italy, England and Ireland… Everything old is new again.

I’m not that worried about the state of the world four years after this election. I’m more worried about what happens if we continue going further and further from conservatism. I think you’re being shortsighted. Although I do disagree with you, I appreciate your thoughtful answer.

Laura on January 8, 2008 at 1:25 AM

As for shortsighted, I believe that’s the way everyone else is here… because they see this principled stand of letting a Dem win as being a road bump when it could clearly be far worse. As for all those things you listed, it was still a different world. Al Qaeda not withstanding we’ve got Iran (nukes/volatile oil prices), we’ve got surging China and India economies (competition/oil prices), Russia (enemy, who’s been practicing war games with both China and India), outrageous taxes that the Dems promise to raise. A healthcare situation. An insecure border that may not get better under Huck, but it is guaranteed to be worse under Dems (“racist fence!”), etc. etc.

There are a lot of people that are worried about an NAU (a genuine concern to keep an eye on), when the real in our face HERE TODAY threat is the NWO/UN creeping towards us with manufactured hysteria from global warming to “disease of the year” (SARS, no wait, west nile… ah crap… I mean “bird flu pandemic!!!”).

or we can deal with extreme leftists who’s stated agendas are antagonizing allies, “talking” to enemies, raising taxes, destroying our economy, open borders and citizenship (and again, voting rights which will greatly affect future elections) to illegals, and giving the UN more power over us.

Wait! I thought you wanted us to vote FOR Huckabee!

Okay, seriously… I disagree. And my goal is not to “stick it” to the GOP, it is to try to turn things around. I think we are under less control from the media than ever before, and that situation is improving every day. As for the economy, you get a Dem in office and presto! chango! The economy is great and it’s all sweetness and light, baby.

At the end of the day, how different is Huck from the Democrats? He’s in favor of all those things you listed. He’s said so, to one degree or another. And he’ll do them with the cooperation of the GOP members of Congress. NO ONE will be pushing back at that point – not the GOP who supported Huck and are still in there fighting for “our team,” and not the Dems who tacitly support him even though he’s a Godbag, because he’s a liberal just like they are.

We recovered pretty quickly from Carter, and we were dealing with, let’s see, Iran, Russia, the PLO, and a way worse economy that Reagan quickly got up to speed. Not to mention Abscam, problems with Cuba (Mariel boat lift), the Unabomber, the Muslim Brotherhood was trying to assassinate people and there were terror bombings in Italy, England and Ireland… Everything old is new again.

I’m not that worried about the state of the world four years after this election. I’m more worried about what happens if we continue going further and further from conservatism. I think you’re being shortsighted. Although I do disagree with you, I appreciate your thoughtful answer.

The reason the GOP lost Congress is not because conservatives “stayed home.”

Republican losses were the result of every other demographic abandoning the Republican Party in droves.

particularly if he made some commitment to serve only one term to clean up things.

Bradky on January 8, 2008 at 12:36 AM

That might help him get elected, but it would inhibit him from getting much done. Instant lame duck. T. Roosevelt said he wouldn’t run again the night of his election to the 2nd term and his afore bombastic presidency immediately skidded to a halt.

Rightwinged, what is your plan for stopping or slowing the leftward tilt of the GOP? How do you think we can bring the party back to our core values?

/not sarc. I’m really interested in your opinion on this.

Laura on January 7, 2008 at 11:50 PM

I’m not going to pretend I have an answer for that. The only point I’m making is the lesser of 2 evils isn’t the best option, but if that’s what we’ve got, that’s what we’ve got. We can deal with people who aren’t conservative enough for us… or we can deal with extreme leftists who’s stated agendas are antagonizing allies, “talking” to enemies, raising taxes, destroying our economy, open borders and citizenship (and again, voting rights which will greatly affect future elections) to illegals, and giving the UN more power over us.

What happened with shamnesty? We made our voices heard and the sissies in the GOP, who were only doing it for fear of getting stomped in elections (as they do) with the latino vote, caved in to us. It was a victory. Now, is there even a chance for that with the current Democratic Party, especially if they control the White House, House, and Senate? You’re guaranteed that we’re screwed. Where as with these weak as GOP candidates it’s more like 50/50.

The problem is, these people who are going to stay home are shortsighted and think this is just “eh, we’ll send a message and in 4 years we’ll get some real candidates”… They, first of all underestimate the power of the media, and secondly, wrongly assume that we can easily recover from what electing a Democrat will mean. We’re dealing with China/Russia, a terror war, an economy that has been booming but is rapidly slowing down while oil prices remain high and while things are still pretty good, everyone seems to be waiting for something to spook us in to all out chaos (thanks again media, you banged that drum for 4 years and now you can see economic trouble on the horizon and you’re sooooooo happy about it.)

The point is, the corrupt culture in the country, etc. etc. is only going to take us further and further from conservatism and you aren’t going to have enough people around to elect “real” conservatives in a generation unless we can at least slow the march of liberalism/secularism/immoralism/etc. Sticking it to the GOP is not going to do ANYTHING, which is why none of the proponents of this idea have explained the end result.

My worry is that no one on our side matches up well with the Messiah: Romney’s too plastic, McCain’s too old, Rudy’s too one-note, and Huck’s really just selling a less historic, less charismatic version of what Obama’s selling himself.

I read an op-ed that speculated on a McCain-Obama matchup. The pundit felt that McCain would get a lot of the senior citizen vote that would blunt the youth vote, particularly if he made some commitment to serve only one term to clean up things.

/not sarc. I’m really interested in your opinion on this.

If more than half of your own party won’t vote for you, you might as well close up shop and save everybody a lot of time and money.

Henceforth I’ll call you guys “sophists.”

Honestly, I think I’m giving you too much credit.

Listen to this guy you will.

MirCat on January 7, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Finally, someone with some sense (and I say that entirely based on the fact that you agreed with me). I don’t get these people who think “sending a message” will do anything. Okay, you don’t like shamnesty Republicans… then elect Democrats who are 10 times worse, don’t want to secure the border, and in fact want to make these people citizens and future voters? Is that what passes for logic for some people? Seriously, what is the goal in your “stay home”/vote for Barry plans? What do you hope to achieve?

We’ve barely survived a Bush presidency.

Does anyone here remember this gem?

Comprehensive Surrender

Suckabee is Bush on HGH.

Do we really want that?

Gerard on January 7, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Something tells me all the stay homers (hmmm from now on I shall call you Homers) never lived through Carter.

- The Cat

Does anyone here remember this gem?

Comprehensive Surrender

Suckabee is Bush on HGH.

Do we really want that?

There it is again… you people totally miss the point. Okay, stick it to the shamnesty Republicans and “send a message”… but electing EVEN WORSE shamnesty Democrats!!! WTF?

RightWinged on January 7, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Listen to this guy you will.

I don’t want a POTUS to appoint “pro-lifers.”

I want him to appoint originalists who will not make up Constitutional rights on the fly.

I guarantee you that Harriet Miers will be just the beginning if Huckabee makes into the White House, which I still think is a remote fantasy at this point.

Gerard on January 7, 2008 at 8:46 PM

And you base this analysis on what exactly? And even so how would Harriet Miers have been worse than Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer? Again I call à l’œuvre on reconnaît l’artisan on you, sir.

- The Cat

if we elect ANY Democrat now and it looks bad. It looks like high taxes, government/UN run everything, no jobs and high unemployment, etc. etc. You know… Europe.

RightWinged on January 7, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Then let them. Its called convictions. People can give Bush crap about a lot of stuff but he has pwn3d the democratic congress. Why? His convictions. Once we elect a RINO because they are “better than a democrat” we will never get back a true conservative.

It would be epic but women and whitey would win :) one for the gipper.

BTW, we did survive Clinton and even Carter.

MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Those were different times, dude. This is a COMPLETELY different world (and I’m not just talking about terrorism).

I guess if the GOP gives us any old POS, we should just totally flush the country down the toilet by saluting and saying “Yes GOP Master, whatever you say my Lordships”, right?

Can I please have another cup of shamnasty?

MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 8:27 PM

There it is again… you people totally miss the point. Okay, stick it to the shamnesty Republicans and “send a message”… but electing EVEN WORSE shamnesty Democrats!!! WTF? It’s not about a “GOP Master” and I’ll thank you to stop pretending anything I’ve said sounds anything like that. I’m just making the simple “lesser of two evils” argument, that sucks, but it’s reality. If you think a President Hillary or Obama at this time in history is something we’ll recover from then by all means sit yer principled asses on your couches or go vote for Obama because you’ve bought the media glorification of him that just makes him seem like such a nice guy. Sorry, but for me I look at the future (for decades to come) if we elect ANY Democrat now and it looks bad. It looks like high taxes, government/UN run everything, no jobs and high unemployment, etc. etc. You know… Europe.

The world’s leading “conservative of doubt” expects plenty of aisle-crossing come November by disgruntled Republicans who aren’t “anti-immigrant,”

I call BS on that premise. Rush addressed it this afternoon. Conservatives are pissed of at Bush and his spending and that he is the beginning of the redifining of conservatism. A lot of hard core conservatives, like myself, will not accept anything that redefines us. I am a Fred supporter and he probably has no chance, but we wont accept a nominey that doesnt represent my values. Its that simple. Many are changing parties, going independent whathaveyou.

I have convictions and want a true conservative. Period. You want to vote in a R that is a liberal with some conservative tendencies knock yourselves out.