Media Fans Flames of GOP Religious Divide

Media Fans Flames of GOP Religious Divide

By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
December 17, 2007 - 06:18 ET

In an article that is ostensibly supposed to be about the many Iowa homeschoolers that are supporting Mike Huckabee, the Washington Post pins the reason to the fact that homeschooling parents must hate Mormons! This has easily become the MSM's favorite theme as they try to divide and anger portions of the GOP primary voting base against each other. In this MSM meme, anyone who votes against Romney or questions the relative Christian merits of the Mormon faith is a bigot who hates Mormons and won't vote for Romney merely because he is one. They are also unanimous in pinning support for Huckabee to an anti-Mormon sentiment. The MSM is doing their level best to start a religious war on the right.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In the Post's article, religion is the central theme of pro-Huckabee homeschool advocates. Here the Post reveals the efforts of a homeschooling Mother named Julie Roe (bet they chose her for her familiar name: Roe) who has stumped for Huckabee by making homemade buttons and making numerous phone calls.

Julie Roe, an early believer in Mike Huckabee, worked with what she had... With no buttons, no yard signs and no glossy literature from his nearly invisible Iowa campaign, she took a pair of scissors and cut out a photograph of the former Arkansas governor. She pasted it on a piece of paper, scribbled down some of his positions, made copies and launched the Huckabee for President campaign in rural Hardin County.

So, why Huckabee? (My emphasis added throughout).

Huckabee's name is no longer a mystery to Iowa's Republican voters, in large part because of an extensive network of home-schoolers like Roe who have helped lift his underfunded campaign from obscurity to the front of a crowded field. Opinion polls show that his haphazard approach is trumping the studied strategy of Mitt Romney, who invested millions only to be shunned by many religious conservatives such as Roe, who see the former Baptist preacher from Hope, Ark., as their champion.

But, even the Post contradicts this religious basis only a few paragraphs later.

While early attention focused on Romney and other better-known and better-funded opponents, home-schoolers rallied to Huckabee's cause, attracted by his faith, his politics and his decision to appoint a home-school proponent to the Arkansas board of education. They tapped a web of community and church groups that share common conservative interests, blasting them with e-mails and passing along the word about Huckabee in social settings.

It was the endorsement by prominent national home-school advocate Michael Farris that helped propel Huckabee to a surprising second-place finish in the Iowa straw poll in August. And it was the twin sons of a home-school advocate in Oregon who helped put Huckabee in touch with television tough guy Chuck Norris, who appeared alongside him in an attention-getting TV spot and on the campaign trail.

Sorry, Washington Post. It isn't really Huckabee's religion that the homeschoolers are excited over. It is the fact that he handed homeschoolers a big plum when he was Gov. of Arkansas. It isn't the religion of the matter as the Post tries to make it seem, but just good old fashioned politics.

Huckabee has given the homeschoolers power and they are paying him back for that past support of their cause. It's just that simple.

Yes, Huckabee is of the same basic religious background of the great preponderance of homeschooling parents, but if Mitt Rmoney had handed the homeschool lobby such a choice state job in Massachusetts, HE would have gotten their notice just like Huckabee did.

In reality it has little to do with religion. After all, how many pundits or supporters of other candidates have you really heard say they won’t vote for someone based on their religion? Hardly anyone and certainly no one in the chattering classes!

Yet, here we have the Washington Post fanning the flames of religious bickering. Why is that do you think?

The answer is, of course, to divide and conquer the GOP candidates. If the MSM can hurt both Romney and Huckabee at the same time with the religious angle, so much the better to help their favored Democrat candidate win at a later date.

Get the factions to bicker and they won’t be united later. It’s an ages old strategy and the MSM is trying their hearts out to employ it.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

They may have this one right

December 17, 2007 - 06:57 ET by PopularTech

I am sorry but it is the evangelicals driving the Hucksters popularity because there is no other reason to vote for this guy and yes I believe they do not want to vote for a mormon.

Huckabee on Taxes (Video) (1min)
Another Man From Hope. Who is Mike Huckabee? (The Wall Street Journal)

Background:

Age: 52

Education:
- Ordained to ministry Southern Baptist Convention, 1974
- B.A. Religion, Ouachita Baptist University, 1976

Military Experience:
- None

Political Experience:
- Lt. Governor of Arkansas, 1993-1996
- Governor of Arkansas, 1996-2007

Religion:
- Baptist

Fiscal Record:

Huckabee's Fiscal Record
Huckabee: The Biggest Big-Government Conservative (FOXNews)
Mike Huckabee is a Liberal (Club for Growth)
Updated Huckabee White Paper (Club for Growth)

- Immediately upon taking office he signed a sales tax hike in 1996
- He raised taxes on gasoline in 1999
- He supported an internet sales tax in 2001
- He created a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001
- He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002
- He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements
- He raised taxes on cigarettes in 2003
- He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003
- He allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law in 2004
- He increased taxes in the state by more than Bill Clinton did
- He increased state spending 65.3% from 1996 to 2004
- The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure
- Governor Huckabee refused to pledge not to raise taxes if elected President

Tax Hike Mike

-
Overall, Huckabee’s substantial tax hikes far surpassed his modest tax
cuts, with the average tax burden increasing by a whopping 47% over his
tenure.

Illegal Immigration:

Laura Ingraham: Huckabee Is A "Big Loser" On Immigration (Audio) (5min)
Huckabee Supported Scholarships for Illegal Aliens (Video) (5min)

Huckabee aid plan for illegal aliens draws 'venom, anger' (Arkansas News Bureau)
Huckabee promotes 'open door' policy at LULAC convention (Arkansas News Bureau)

Crime and Punishment:

Mike Huckabee's Clemency Record Is Under Scrutiny (FOXNews)
Why parole a monster like Green
Lois Davidson tells her story (Video) (1min)

Ethics:

Huck's gift-givers ended up in state posts
Huckabee Signed '98 Ad Urging Women to 'Graciously Submit' to Husbands

Global Warming:

Huckabee
is the only Republican candidate to support the economy crippling Cap
and Trade CO2 Legislation, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
Regulation and Renewable Energy Standards

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Thanks for lumping us all together...

December 17, 2007 - 09:53 ET by Joe Shlabotnik

it is the evangelicals driving the Hucksters popularity...I believe they do not
want to vote for a mormon

What say you speak for yourself? Being one of those evangelicals you speak of, I will not be voting for Huckabee in the primary. My mind is not entirely made up, but right now my first choice is Thompson, and second choice is Romney.

Not all but...

December 17, 2007 - 10:27 ET by PopularTech

But by far the majority are evangelicals. I will vote for just about any of the GOP except Huckabee and McAmnesty. And yes I will vote for Rudy against any Dem.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

}}---> PopTech

December 17, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Cool Arrow

You would honestly vote for Edwards over Huckabee or McCain?

I ♣ My Seal

Nope

December 17, 2007 - 10:55 ET by PopularTech

I would never vote for a democrat but I would vote third party. If Huckabee or McCain gets nominated I would either not vote or vote independent.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Huck's not THAT great on homeschooling...

December 17, 2007 - 07:05 ET by sarcasmo

A plum job on the backs of the taxpayers is one thing. Leaving homeschoolers the hell alone is quite another...We'll see which idea wins in the end. Iowa homeschoolers aren't stupid, and they've got a lot of time to decide what size government they really-want.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

That's right

December 17, 2007 - 07:09 ET by Cool Arrow

Gonna be awful hard to rally all those homeschoolers against one of the few entities that has fostered and supported it.

I ♣ My Seal

Homeschooling is not a good idea

December 17, 2007 - 07:35 ET by PopularTech

I've met plenty of kids who were home schooled and they have problems interacting with others in a social environment. Homeschooling is not the solution, what we need is school choice which will completely and finally solve the education problem which would include reduce school spending and taxes.

Huckabee on Education: No to Vouchers, Let Government Fix It

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

So, all homeschoolers are

December 17, 2007 - 07:39 ET by Warner Todd Huston

So, all homeschoolers are socially inept?

Now THAT seems a pretty ridiculous statement.

}}---> Thanks again Warner

December 17, 2007 - 07:41 ET by Cool Arrow

I was hoping I wasn't the only one spewing coffee thru the nose.

I ♣ My Seal

I've met a couple,

December 19, 2007 - 16:26 ET by TruthMonger

I've met a couple, too...

...and so I can conclude that...

Reality

December 17, 2007 - 07:43 ET by PopularTech

Yes most home schoolers do not have the necessary social skills from the lack of interaction with their peers. They wind up having to learn this the hard way.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

"MOST homeschoolers"? And

December 17, 2007 - 07:46 ET by motherbelt

"MOST homeschoolers"? And on what do you base that sweeping statement, besides your own limited anecdotal evidence?

It is called logic

December 17, 2007 - 07:52 ET by PopularTech

If you reduce the amount of interaction a child has with other children and the amount of situations they have to deal with those children in, it is impossible for them to learn these skills except the hard way, which is when they are older and in the real world.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

}}---> You're scaring me PopTech

December 17, 2007 - 07:55 ET by Cool Arrow

Just how do you delve the depths of these children's naivetee?

I ♣ My Seal

Simple

December 17, 2007 - 07:59 ET by PopularTech

They behave like you.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

history has seen your kind

December 19, 2007 - 16:28 ET by TruthMonger

history has seen your kind of thinking here before, PT...

and not from contemporary home-schooled grads...

you don't think all black people look alike do you?

Do you have any proof of this?

December 17, 2007 - 07:47 ET by sarcasmo

Because my anecdotal evidence (homeschooled kids are usually great, and do just-fine socially) is completely contrary to yours, albeit equally unscientific.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

}}---> OH yeah, PopTech?

December 17, 2007 - 07:39 ET by Cool Arrow

Here we go with the anecdotal when facts aren't handy.

C'mon PopTech. Lead us in a few choruses how great the NEA and Public schools are.

I ♣ My Seal

Moron

December 17, 2007 - 07:47 ET by PopularTech

You people never cease to amaze me. I am AGAINST the public school system and want SCHOOL CHOICE but your knee jerk reaction to my anti-"home schooling" for proven reasons makes you make an idiotic statement like that.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

More off

December 17, 2007 - 07:50 ET by Cool Arrow

So PopTech, did you learn to call people morons in homeschooling?

Thanks for your "proven reasons"

I ♣ My Seal

Predictable

December 17, 2007 - 07:54 ET by PopularTech

I was never homeschooled (thank god)

Did you learn to make stupid assumptions from homeschooling?

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

With all due respect, PT, it

December 17, 2007 - 07:55 ET by motherbelt

With all due respect, PT, it is YOU that have exhibited the "knee-jerk" reaction to home-schooling. That is the standard, knee-jerk line...homeschooled kids are socially inept.

And "Moron" is not a substantive argument. I'll bet you went to public schools.

Please

December 17, 2007 - 07:55 ET by PopularTech

I have family who was and work with people who were and have met many others who were. They all share the same naiveness and lack of social skills for a reason = they were all homeschooled.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

}}---> So, PopTech

December 17, 2007 - 07:59 ET by Cool Arrow

With all this talk about naivetee, I'm begionning to wonder if you're the "Uncle Ernie" of the family?

I ♣ My Seal

well, he's certainly done

December 19, 2007 - 16:33 ET by TruthMonger

well, he's certainly done some exhaustive clinical research, vetted by a group of critical peers and further edited by several scientific journalists on home-schooling...

over the table at thanksgiving...

completely stoned on Triptophan, no less...

Well, my anecdotal evidence

December 17, 2007 - 08:03 ET by motherbelt

Well, my anecdotal evidence contradicts yours.

It's unfortunate that the kids you know that are homeschooled are having problems. But that doesn't mean they all are.

A lot of public school kids are rude, arrogant, and vicious. They bully, attack and denigrate their peers, in addition to experimenting with drugs and alcohol.

Is that what you consider socially competent?

Obvious not all

December 17, 2007 - 08:08 ET by PopularTech

Obvious some people naturally have or quickly learn the necessary social skills, just like some are born brilliant. Unfortunately most people need to be taught this, which they can only learn properly by attending a school. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant this is simple logic.

Will you stop bringing up public schools, I am for school choice.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Excuse me?????

December 17, 2007 - 08:16 ET by motherbelt

Excuse me?????

You are allowed to bring up home schooling , but I have to "stop bringing up public schools??????

And I asked you before: If you are "for school choice" is home school one of those options? If so, fine; we can disagree on their effectiveness. If not, then you are a hypocrite.

Ridiculous

December 17, 2007 - 08:36 ET by PopularTech

You need to stop bringing up public schools to try and counter my argument when I am not defending public schools. What you are doing by it is implying that is what I am arguing. Yes you need to stop implying things I never stated. I am not going to go through you making sweeping generalizations and then I have to defend each one. Why not try asking instead of assuming.

You home is not a school, sorry to break it to you. If REAL school choice was available then homeschooling would not be an issue.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Whut? Is this an

December 17, 2007 - 08:44 ET by tracheostomy

Whut? Is this an architectural argument?

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Counter WHAT argument???

December 17, 2007 - 09:07 ET by motherbelt

Counter WHAT argument??? You offered anecdotal evidence that homeschooling makes kids sociall inept. I "countered your argument" with anecdotal evidence of my own. So you are allowed to just spout off from your experience but I have to supply extensive proof?

OK, try this and this for a start. You can find even more just by "googling" "Homeschool successes" I'm not doing all your work for you.

You can probably find sources that say the opposite too. The point would then be that it's a mixed bag, not unlike public and private schools.

Again, I ask you: would homeschooling be part of your "school choice" program?

I have things to do and can't spend all morning here, so we will probably have to agree to disagree on this. Like religious arguments, I don't think any minds are going to be changed anyway.

What are you talking about

December 17, 2007 - 10:02 ET by PopularTech

You assumed I was defending public schools when I stated no such thing. I agree public schools offer no MORAL foundation but that has nothing to do with social interaction. Yes public schools offer EXTENSIVE and EXPLICIT social interaction.

My argument is a logical one. Real life experience requires real life interactions. A school provides this. No I do not believe interaction with other home schoolers is a sufficient substitute. I think home schooling is a bad idea and will produce less not more people with the necessary social abilities to interact in the real world. "Being nice and polite" is a moral skill not a social one. So no I am not a big supporter of home schooling. Would I ban it? No but I would not fund it in anyway. Instead I would offer real school choice.

Each state would set a fixed amount to the student STATE WIDE (no exceptions) based on the economics of the state raised through taxation (already in effect), this fixed amount would be significantly less then what most states are spending (NY/NJ = $15,000 per student). For arguments sake say $7000. That money would then go with the student to the school of the PARENTS CHOICE. All school boards/superintendants would be eliminated. Schools would receive no other state or federal funding but would be allowed to raise money themselves or charge additional tuition.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

PT You are the one who

December 17, 2007 - 10:34 ET by motherbelt

You are the one who insists making the argument about public schools.

You refuse to defend (other than with your own personal observations) your assertion that homeschooling makes kids socially inept.

Repetition is not reinforcement.

So there's no real argument here.

Adios.

I did defend it

December 17, 2007 - 11:00 ET by PopularTech

It is a logical argument. Less social interactions = less social interaction skill.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

PopularTech, I admit the

December 17, 2007 - 11:57 ET by Karma

PopularTech, I admit the site-link below is pro-homeschool, but is one of many I came across while learning more about this subject. My personal observations, although very limited, of homeschooled students are very positive.

http://www.familyedu...

Popular Tech, that USED TO

December 17, 2007 - 07:44 ET by motherbelt

Popular Tech, that USED TO be the case, years ago. I'm assuming you haven't had much contact with homeschoolers recently. Homeschoolers now interact LOTS with each other, families band together for outings, field trips, etc. Homeschoolers even play sports with some public school teams.

The kids get plenty of interaction and socialization. Gone are the days when homeschooled kids didn't see anyone but their parents and siblings.

PS and when you talk about "school choice" why shouldn't a home school be one of those "choices"?

Please

December 17, 2007 - 07:45 ET by PopularTech

I have had interaction with them on a daily basis and they all are lacking basic social skills. They exhibit naive and childish behavior among other things.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

ALL????? Examples, please.

December 17, 2007 - 07:50 ET by motherbelt

ALL?????

Examples, please. And even at that, your own local anecdotal evidence can't be extrapolated to the country at large.

I happen to have 2 friends who homeschooled all their kids. Their kids are polite, cheerful, have friends outside the family, interact well with other kids AND adults, and in general are mature beyond their years.

Too Funny

December 17, 2007 - 07:58 ET by PopularTech

I have family members who were and the one was pregnant at 17 and not married (now living with the mother who home schooled her), the other ran away from home. I work with another who treats social interactions like siblings would and resorts to childish petty behavior when ever he feels threatened.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Please see my reply above,

December 17, 2007 - 08:05 ET by motherbelt

Please see my reply above, that begins "My anecdotal evidence contradicts yours."

come on MB - the problems

December 19, 2007 - 16:40 ET by TruthMonger

come on MB - the problems these kids are having all stem exclusively from home-schooling obviously - what else could possibly factor in...???

it takes courage to admit when you're wrong I know...

I've met a ton of public school grads - thousands in my line of work - I teach them college courses...

cream of the crop, let me tell you...

of course they can't find their state on a map, name the presidents cabinet members, spell, write, assemble grammatically correct sentences, do basic math - but SOCIALLY - they usually just grunt in response when spoken to, stare at the internet all day playing video games or text relentlessly on a cell phone rather than join in on the conversation...

Great stuff...

The home-schooled kids I've met can actually interact with you as a person, and do math, grammar, they are polite...

However I do not credit whether it is public or private education (although I have a ton of ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE to assert that) - it's actually the parents that make the difference, period...

disagree entirely

December 17, 2007 - 12:33 ET by candance

I have seen some homeschooled kids who did just fine making friends and going on to college. In fact here is a study that finds the social skill dearth to be a myth.

We must also consider that unless you're a talented child with an upper class family, public/private schools play a big role in causing depression and resentment.

And as an aside, parents have the right to raise their kids however they want, so homeschooling should always be available.

}}---> Thanks, Warner

December 17, 2007 - 07:27 ET by Cool Arrow

It's become very chic lately to hate Huckabee.

I ♣ My Seal

What is there to like?

December 17, 2007 - 07:38 ET by PopularTech

Oh that's right he has a degree in religion. Lets forget all the other inconvenient facts:

Huckabee on Taxes (Video) (1min)
Another Man From Hope. Who is Mike Huckabee? (The Wall Street Journal)

Background:

Age: 52

Education:
- Ordained to ministry Southern Baptist Convention, 1974
- B.A. Religion, Ouachita Baptist University, 1976

Military Experience:
- None

Political Experience:
- Lt. Governor of Arkansas, 1993-1996
- Governor of Arkansas, 1996-2007

Religion:
- Baptist

Fiscal Record:

Huckabee's Fiscal Record
Huckabee: The Biggest Big-Government Conservative (FOXNews)
Mike Huckabee is a Liberal (Club for Growth)
Updated Huckabee White Paper (Club for Growth)

Tax Hike Mike

- Overall, Huckabee’s substantial tax hikes far surpassed his modest tax cuts, with the average tax burden increasing by a whopping 47% over his tenure.

Illegal Immigration:

Laura Ingraham: Huckabee Is A "Big Loser" On Immigration (Audio) (5min)
Huckabee Supported Scholarships for Illegal Aliens (Video) (5min)

Huckabee aid plan for illegal aliens draws 'venom, anger' (Arkansas News Bureau)
Huckabee promotes 'open door' policy at LULAC convention (Arkansas News Bureau)

Crime and Punishment:

Mike Huckabee's Clemency Record Is Under Scrutiny (FOXNews)
Why parole a monster like Green
Lois Davidson tells her story (Video) (1min)

Ethics:

Huck's gift-givers ended up in state posts
Huckabee Signed '98 Ad Urging Women to 'Graciously Submit' to Husbands

Education:

Huckabee on Education: No to Vouchers, Let Government Fix It

Global Warming:

Huckabee is the only Republican candidate to support the economy crippling Cap and Trade CO2 Legislation, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Regulation and Renewable Energy Standards

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Quite enough...

December 17, 2007 - 07:40 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Sir,

You've posted all your anti-Huck stuff twice now. That is enough for one thread. Post it again and I will edit it out.

First and final warning.

Afraid of the Truth?

December 17, 2007 - 07:42 ET by PopularTech

So your afraid of the truth Warren? You can't have anyone reading anything negative about the Huckster.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

First of all the name is

December 17, 2007 - 07:57 ET by Warner Todd Huston

First of all the name is WARNER. I assume you are having trouble with that because you lack certain social skills... like respect.

But, I am afraid of nothing. I've let you post you stuff twice and I haven't a problem with it. Everyone can EASILY see your links and info. There is NO reason to clutter this thread with the same stuff more than once.

I am NOT a Huckabee supporter, and even if I were I'd not have a problem with you posting your anti-Huck info. We need all the debate and info we can get on all our candidates, good AND bad.

BUT ONCE IS ENOUGH.This is not YOUR website, but one for us all. You want to attack Huckabee repeatedly... start your OWN website.

Warner that was a typo

December 17, 2007 - 09:45 ET by PopularTech

You keep deleting my posts stating it was a typo but you have no problem leaving your post stating the opposite. I am sorry but I did not deliberately spell your name wrong as I have no reason to insult your name.

You also deleted Cool Arrows posts stating that Warner is a word that means to warn and I should have been homeschooled to learn this. AHAHAHA!!!

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

I have not deleted any posts

December 17, 2007 - 09:50 ET by Warner Todd Huston

I have not deleted any posts about what my name means. But, obviously you have a persecution complex.

As to why you misspelled my name, I make no speculation that serves a useful purpose here. I'm pretty sure that most have their own idea.

Seriously

December 17, 2007 - 10:08 ET by PopularTech

Warner that was A TYPO! Go edit my post! If I was going to mispell your name or make fun of it I would make it sound funny like The Huckster.

Here is one: "Huston we have a problem" or "Toddy Bear". Man it doesn't even make any frickin sense calling your Warren!

Man I work with a guy named Warren so everytime I see your name it kept coming into my head. I kept thinking Warren Todd Huston. But damn it was NOT INTENTIONAL!

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Whatever.

December 17, 2007 - 10:23 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Whatever.

Everyone on the wife's side

December 17, 2007 - 08:08 ET by tracheostomy

Everyone on the wife's side of the family votes conservative, and we're all at odds on who to support.

I used to be a McCain donor, but I moved toward Romney briefly, and now I'm fully backing Giuliani. The one person responsible for talking me into it was Dennis Miller.

I know Rudy's got a bit of a Roe problem of his own, but that's what 3-D ultrasounds are for. =)

:puts on crash helmet & goggles:

You may fire when ready.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

trach..I think the MSM just

December 17, 2007 - 08:20 ET by motherbelt

trach..I think the MSM just want to stir up trouble. It's a case of "Let's you and him fight (I'll hold your coat)!" They are hoping with all their might to split the party, to grease the skids for their girl.

I just hope that all Republicans can get behind whoever the candidate is. Because, to me, the alternative is unthinkable.

There! That wasn't so bad now, was it???? LOL

}}---> Right on to that MB

December 17, 2007 - 08:25 ET by Cool Arrow

We can disagree among ourselves about our family of conservatives, but I'm thinking we'll close ranks once we've settled on one candidate.

I ♣ My Seal

Absolutely. <---- Not a

December 17, 2007 - 08:27 ET by tracheostomy

Absolutely. <---- Not a typo. Troll that one at your own risk.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

I really don't think it's

December 17, 2007 - 08:25 ET by tracheostomy

I really don't think it's that. I think it's just a case of too many "interesting" candidates to choose from. Clinton and Edwards are kind of yesterday's news, and Obama's sort of a clean slate; only interesting when he's got some celeb endorsing him.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Huckabee is a liberal and his record proves it.

December 17, 2007 - 10:00 ET by Six String Spiff

The only people (IMO) who would vote for him are Bible thumpers. Since WHEN did this election become all about who loves GOD the right way? This among other things is why I am registered independent. I cannot stand how much bickering there is amongst GOP members. We have WAY more important things to worry about than trivial things like that. I want to know what solutions are being presented for actual problems. The most important one being Islamo terrorists. It doesn't mean anything to have a 'proper' Christian in office if the country goes down the toilet due to other reasons. ISSUES should be important. Not what faith one practices. Speaking of which, all of this anti Romney, anti Mormon BS needs to stop. Romney was my Governor for 8 years, and as such he NEVER ONCE injected his faith into policy. So all you people who are running around (Not necessarily on this site...) worrying about that are being ridiculous.

}}---> Right Spiff

December 17, 2007 - 10:07 ET by Cool Arrow

You jump in with your "only bible thumpers" nonsense and end with "anti Romney/ anti Mormon BS needs to stop"

You just contradicted yourself by slamming evangelicals. It wasn't fair.

I ♣ My Seal

Yeah CA, and I dunno about

December 17, 2007 - 10:16 ET by tracheostomy

Yeah CA, and I dunno about his term served as governor, but the "Mitt wept" article on Drudge exposed a lot of his eschatology right there without having to twist his arm or anything.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

}}---> OMG Trach

December 17, 2007 - 10:21 ET by Cool Arrow

Those two words should have been the big headline. Chapter and verse would have been a nice touch too.

I ♣ My Seal

Didja read on down to the

December 17, 2007 - 10:25 ET by tracheostomy

Didja read on down to the "good part" yet? If Huck wasn't so naive, slow on the draw, etc. He would have laid real low until a nugget like that came along.

Hopefully, the remaining evangelical Romney supporters/Hannity listeners might see it and wake up.

Maybe not.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Cool Arrow..

December 17, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Six String Spiff

Have I said something incorrect? If so, would you kindly point it out? Huckabee supporters are 'thumpers'. That is no derogatory. It is a fact. Huckabee with wither after Iowa. Watch. I like the Christian faith but it is by no means a prerequisite for POTUS.

PT - Homeschooling

December 17, 2007 - 11:45 ET by BigFella

PopTech,

I have enjoyed you responses to other topics, especially AGW and have been impressed with your desire to support your opinions with logic and links, etc. I got to say though, that on this you have lost me. It is way too much of a leap to assume all homeschoolers are socially inept because you have "family who was and work with people who were and have met many others who were..." that way. Frankly, I am surprised at how illogical that assumption is coming from you.

It is a logical argument

December 18, 2007 - 21:08 ET by PopularTech

Less social interactions = less social interaction skills. But I believe the real issue is lack of school choice. The reason I believe most home schoolers turn to it is because they do not have that choice. IMO real school choice would effectively eliminate a large majority of home schooling.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Warner,

December 17, 2007 - 11:53 ET by JoeBob

Warner,

Without dismissing your premise that the media want a rift on religion among conservatives, I would disagree with your statement that Mike Farris's endorsement was based solely or primarily on homeschooling 'plums' rather than on religion. Mr. Farris's involvement with Patrick Henry College in Va. and Generation Joshua (youth civic advocacy) highlights a strong religious component that mirrors Huckabee's background and beliefs. I would not say that anti-Mormonism played a part in Mr. Farris's or the profiled homeschoolers' endorsement of Huckabee, but to say that religious advocacy did not would probably be far from the truth as well.

Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious

Fair enough, but I still

December 17, 2007 - 12:04 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Fair enough, but I still feel it was more because Huckabee has been the only candidate to come through with tangible political assets to the Homeschool lobby.

Speaking for myself, as a

December 17, 2007 - 12:38 ET by JoeBob

Speaking for myself, as a conservative homeschooler I'm less than thrilled with political handouts, wanting only to be left the hell alone (not that I'm anti-social, though, PopTech). However, like (I think) most people, I do appreciate the concept of a leader who thinks and acts like I do. In this particular case, I contend that the pro-homeschool action (Arkansas is still classified by HSLDA as being a moderately regulated state, though) and like-minded religious beliefs were equally important to Mr. Farris. Just my impression from Mr. Farris's writings, though.

Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious

I don't know much about home

December 17, 2007 - 13:01 ET by Chris Norman

I don't know much about home schooling, not being - er - blessed - with children, but I assume these kids aren't kept in solitary confinement. I would further assume they interact with neighborhood children and relatives below majority age. Am I wrong?

Am I wrong?

December 17, 2007 - 17:50 ET by vrwc13

No...
v

Here's some anecdotal evidence for you

December 17, 2007 - 13:01 ET by sockmonkey

WE homeschool. My children are normal, have friends, are not socially inept. They play with LOTS of kids, and when they play with publicly-schooled kids in our neighborhood, they get to learn what inappropriate behavior looks and sounds like. And it reminds me (and them!) WHY we homeschool! We believe CIVILIZED is better than SOCIALIZED, if by socialized you mean "acting like every other foolish child their age." The studies showing the comparative life advantage of homeschooling are numerous. The argument that they are socially inept is a tired one. But even if it WERE true, we'd still choose homeschooling over socialistic group-think any day!

Also, remember that some kids are homeschooled BECAUSE they are socially awkward, not as a result of the fact. And good for their parents, because those children are brutalized in school.

Have to agree with the media on this one

December 17, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Conservative Voice

It doesn't take a whole lot of journalistic skill to see that there is a religious divide among conservatives and that Huckabee is not only in the middle of it, but has benefited the most from it. How many other candidates ran an ad claiming to be the Christian Leader? How many other Republican candidates do you know asked not so innocent questions about Romney's faith?

Sure you could claim it has to do with homeschool benefits, just like you can claim carrots killed everyone who ate them in the 1800s. This is a real stretch for you Warner, and I have to wonder how much of your own bias is clouding your judgment.

Hate to say it, if you are voting for Huckabee over Romney and call youself a conservative, than chances are you are doing it based on religion, as Romney is more conservative and the only thing Huckabee is running on is his religion. And if that isn't bigotry, then I don't know what is. If you don't consider Romney to be conservative enough, fine than vote for a better conservative, or don't call yourself conservative...Anyone is better over Huckabee.

The Huckster

December 18, 2007 - 00:07 ET by doug1950

Ole Huck might be a really nice guy but his politics reminds me way too much of another Southern Governor whom the people just fell in love with. All that corn pone, pecan pie wit (Im southern btw, so I know of what I speak) and aw shucks ma'am baloney ain't worth a flip when it comes to being POTUS. The peckerwood I am referring to is one Jimmah Carter of Plains, GA. The Huckster appears at least to me to of the same ilk and mentality. If we just try and get along wiff the rest of that big ole world out there they will love us. Yeah, and moonpies are really made on the moon. Huck is a goober just like Jimmah was and still is. Besides, I can not force myself to vote for someone who looks and talks like Gomer Pyle.

Take religion out of the race....

December 18, 2007 - 00:22 ET by Clear thinker

Issues like this is what they should be discussing......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGpYHIlWzb0

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/

Clear

December 18, 2007 - 00:32 ET by Blonde

Don't you find it fascinating that the media is just dissing Fred?

Every which way they can? I thought his little "I'm not doing hands tonite...but I will answer" was brilliant.

I suspect the pundits don't have a clue about Fred...he doesn't fit any of their paradigms, nor any of their experience(s) as pundits.

So they just discount him...and spin on and on about the polls.

I am betting South Carolina's primary will have all of these twits in knots (wish I could have made that rhyme, somehow).

And then super Early Tuesday....in which I get a vote.

Did you know that both the Dems & Repubs have "punished" Florida for moving up our primary...by forbidding any campaigning here? Kind of silly, yes. So those of us who are politcal animals are kind of having a nice time...not to mention, I don't have to change the channel every five minutes....Serially...if Obama and the Cackle were on each and every hour...well, you know.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

Blonde...

December 18, 2007 - 00:37 ET by Clear thinker

I can't wait for Fred to pull out wins in the first couple of primary states. Let's see if the media will grovel at is feet then.

Personally, I think FL could be real big for Fred, especially in the ex-pat Cuban communities and the retired blue collar workers.

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/

Warner Todd Huston's its okay for me to be a Bigot post.

December 18, 2007 - 11:21 ET by Daniel Baker

Anyone tackling WTH assertion that it is okay to be a bigot because MSM is going too far the other way.

"In this MSM meme, anyone who ...questions the
relative Christian merits of the Mormon faith is a bigot who hates
Mormons and won't vote for Romney merely because he is one."

Christian Merits? Jesus Christ is the only one who can judge that.

Wrong on every count. Nice

December 18, 2007 - 11:24 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Wrong on every count. Nice try at name calling and slander though.

The only Name Calling and Slander is your ad hominem attacks on

December 18, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Daniel Baker

a certain religion. What was it "con-man, liar" and so forth. How do you think you would do if a discrimination lawsuit was filed against you. You would certainly make it a hostile work environment for someone with that religion.

we're all bigots

December 19, 2007 - 14:36 ET by TruthMonger

we're all bigots people

the question is are you a good bigot or a bad bigot:)?

God: a perfectly good and loving bigot

TM: not very good at all by a long shot - but trying....

By the way, are you a paid

December 18, 2007 - 11:32 ET by Warner Todd Huston

By the way, are you a paid Romney blogger type? Because you are doing exactly like others in the bag for Romney like Hugh Hewitt do. Act in faux high dudgeon and pretend everyone is a "bigot" so that you can shut down any discussion of your flip-flopping, liberal candidate. Hide behind the fake outrage that anyone dare discuss Mormonism at all to shield your candidate from any discussion of the issues.

It's pretty transparent.

thank you Warner...

December 18, 2007 - 11:39 ET by vrwc13

I have been spanked with "bigot" here alot.
But I think you have hit the nail on the head.
A lot of evangelicals will hesitate to vote for Romney. But I wonder if a poll was taken, how many Mormons would NOT vote for Romney?

Do you also wonder how many Black people will not vote for Obama

December 18, 2007 - 11:57 ET by Daniel Baker

8%

December 18, 2007 - 12:02 ET by SouthJersey1953

Eight percent of black adults and 13 percent of all Democrats polled said they would vote to block Mr. Obama from the White House according to the Rasmussen poll.

It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong

I'm a Christian fundie and

December 19, 2007 - 16:54 ET by TruthMonger

I'm a Christian fundie and I've been sold on Romney since the summer - and that has not changed...

He has impressed me with his executive skills, his disaster-solving skills with the Olympics and the State of Mass - re-elected governor in that socialist republic, no less - he understands conservative faith and it's proper place in government service - but most of all - great hair...

So he's a Mormon - check out his hair, man - I mean come on...

No one else has the hair thing going as well - he even makes the edwards look like a repulsive two-bagger:)...

TruthMonger, I agree that

December 19, 2007 - 17:06 ET by RJ

of all the frontrunners, Romney is most qualified to be POTUS, for all the reasons you stated.

However, what keeps me from completely getting on board are his "evolved" positions. Notice I don't call them flip-flops, because I don't think they are. I just want a better sense that we can rely on them.

...RJ, I'm not exactly

December 19, 2007 - 17:21 ET by TruthMonger

...RJ, I'm not exactly overly enthusiastic about Romney largely due to him seeming to me as kinda liberal - like GWB - he also immediately threw Larry Craig under the bus without due process which really pissed me off...

I'm just thinking the RNC will obviously have to be practical and face the reality of "electability" and a "winning ticket" - they don't have the idealistic luxuries that we have here in primaries dream land...

So I predict Romney/Thompson - a nice "North/South" and "DC outsider/insider" balance - and Romney would top the ticket due to executive experience - if Fred had been a gov or company chief that might switch the top...

Rudy is way too liberal...

Huckabee is way to strange...

Ron Paul is off the charts in isolationist policy dream land

Stranger things have happened though - I was very disappointed about Gore and Kerry getting as many votes as they did...

President Edwards is not necessarily out of the question I fear...

TM... President Edwards

December 19, 2007 - 17:22 ET by bigtimer

TM...

President Edwards is not necessarily out of the question I fear...

I agree with you here, he is the one I have always been more afraid of in the long run too.

concur...I would sooner

December 19, 2007 - 17:23 ET by TruthMonger

concur...I would sooner prefer president Chavez...

TM... I meant afraid of

December 19, 2007 - 17:28 ET by bigtimer

TM...

I meant afraid of him being the leftist sleeper and slipping on by Hill/Obama...

I am more terrified of Hillary if she ever became Prez and what she would get through if possible, which she won't IMO anyway.

TM, I can't decide which of the three Dems would be worse

December 19, 2007 - 17:33 ET by RJ

As far as I can see, ANY of them would be a disaster.

For that reason, "electability" of the Republican candidate has to become primary at some point. This "I wouldn't vote for him" nonsense is childish. We can't just give upcoming SCOTUS appointments away to the Dems.

Exactly RJ... SCOTUS and

December 19, 2007 - 17:43 ET by bigtimer

Exactly RJ...

SCOTUS and other Judges that are appointed are of the utmost importance for this country beyond all...of course National Defense and Borders/illegal immigration go without saying.

Plus the more voters that go to the polls that are conservative will help a heck of a lot for the congress-critters up for election and re-election....utmost importance.

Just wanted to throw in my two cents...as if I haven't posted such before....hehehee

Good point about the Congress-critters, BT

December 19, 2007 - 17:50 ET by RJ

The "I'll sit this one out" voters will be helping the Dems not just for POTUS/SCOTUS, but in the Congressional elections. They might as well go all the way and change their affiliation to Democrat...

vrwc

December 19, 2007 - 14:05 ET by Conservative Voice

There are a large number of Mormons who aren't voting for Romney, for the longest time he wasn't my pick ( he's in my top two ) because I didn't want to be accused of voting him outright because he was Mormon. But the fact is many Mormons are voting for Ron Paul, many Mormons prefer other canidates, and there are some who are Democrat, so wouldn't vote for Romney on that basis. But thanks for playing the "they do it too mommy" card.

is it a Republic or a Theocracy

December 19, 2007 - 14:17 ET by LionKing

This is politics. While it is reasonable to consider someone's faith as part of the criteria, I would find it foolish to base my vote strictly on a persons religion. Bill Clinton claims to be a Baptist, but I figure that he is still amoral.

Personally, I think you need to focus on issues and how the candidate will deal with the issues which are most important to you.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

Lion King...

December 20, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Clear thinker

Amen!

As a Christian, I am sick of people bashing other peoples religion. This is, the last time I looked, a FREE COUNTRY. We the people, have the right to our own faiths, just as the candidates do.

Now, can we please get back to looking at the candidates records, policies, votes, integrity, leadership abilities, etc, and leave their faith out of it?

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/

Clear thinker...

December 20, 2007 - 11:36 ET by LionKing

Exactly...issues. We are not electing someone to be our spiritual leader, but rather, a leader in the government.

Track record and stance on issues should be the main focus.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

I'm entirely on topic

December 18, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Daniel Baker

This post of yours up above was discussing bigotry with respect to religion. It wasn't discussing some liberal posistion or flip-flopping. Funny that Romney gets your flip-flopping, liberal anger up when Huckabee , the most liberal canidate, is the main point of this post.

Huckabee is just as bad.

December 18, 2007 - 12:23 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Huckabee is just as bad. Funny how you didn't answer the question though.

That's pretty closed-minded, Warner

December 19, 2007 - 14:58 ET by RJ

1) Someone can't prefer Romney without being in the bag or being a paid blogger-type?

2) Attacking the religion of others is NOT "discussing the issues." If you've been reading the threads, you'd see that the anti-Romney posters have been attacking Mormonism much more frequently than Romney's policies or "issues." By definition, their religiously intolerant behavior has been bigoted.

3) Evolving in your positions isn't flip-flopping. If you're going to make that charge, you must also call Ronald Reagan a "flip-flopper." But it would be fair to discuss whether there are issues in which Romney might be pandering.

Romney isn't just a flip

December 19, 2007 - 16:08 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Romney isn't just a flip flopper.... he is an outright liar. I will not vote for this man. PERIOD. He is worse than a covert liberal, he is a man WITHOUT principle. This means he will bend with every wind and in a day when we are going to need one of the strongest presidents in our history that is DANGEROUS.

He is certainly no conservative, that's for sure.

If he is the nominee, I will stay home, most likely. (Unless it is Romney vs. Obama. Then it's Romney by a hair, the least of two very bad evils.)

In the end, I don't give a hoot about Romney's faux Christian religion. It's HIM I won't vote for, not his religion.

Warner, as I just said on another thread

December 19, 2007 - 16:17 ET by RJ

I'm not pleased with ANY of the top Republican candidates. However, I'll vote for whoever they nominate for one reason: the SCOTUS and other judicial appointments are too important to give to the Democrats by default.

P.S. "In the end, I don't give a hoot about Romney's faux Christian religion. It's HIM I won't vote for, not his religion."

But, obviously, it IS Romney's religion that upsets you. You pretend to be politically objective about him, but your religious emotionalism still comes through, as you just couldn't stop yourself from attacking Romney's religion yet again.

It's interesting that you've

December 20, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Warner Todd Huston

It's interesting that you've used your tiny little mind to read my thoughts to somehow "know" that it is Romney's religion I am really against.

Idiot.

My goodness, Warner. You run RIGHT to the ad hominems.

December 20, 2007 - 11:21 ET by RJ

haha. Just as you demonstrated in our last little tete-a-tete, you're apparently unable to discuss issues in a mature manner.

That makes it doubly laughable that you pretend to be "objective." Laughable, first, in your immediate resorting (once again) to personal attacks on me, and, second, in your obvious blindness to your own emotional and negative feeling toward Romney's religion.

"In the end, I don't give a hoot about Romney's faux Christian religion. It's HIM I won't vote for, not his religion."

"don't give a hoot?" "faux Christian?" Yeah, Warner, in addition to being contradictory on it's face, THAT's being objective about the issues.

You called me a liar. What

December 20, 2007 - 11:32 ET by Warner Todd Huston

You called me a liar. What do you expect?

But, have a Merry Christmas anyway... if you believe in such things?

Bye, bye lil' fella.

Ah. So that's your excuse, Warner

December 20, 2007 - 11:51 ET by RJ

Contradicting you or pointing out inconsistencies isn't calling you a liar, Warner...but your using that claim to justify your personal attacks IS dishonest....either that, or you're rationalizing your behavior.

Again, you claimed you were being objective about Romney, but your own words said otherwise.

Nice try...

December 20, 2007 - 12:01 ET by Warner Todd Huston

As usual, you are trying to squirm out of your own behavior. You called me a liar than decided you could read my mind to prove it. Now you are pretending you were being nuanced -- using a truly leftist argument.

#1- I have never written here that I've held Romney's religion against him. It is HIS lack of character that I despise. I don't give a flying fig about his religion.

#2- calling it a faux Christian religion has nothing to DO with HIM (He didn't start it... you DO know that right? I mean, it isn't called Mittmonism, you know? Right... you DO know this? I... HOPE you do, anyway). It IS a faux Christian religion by the factual theological differences between it and Christianity. Period. Any one who says differently has not bothered to study these facts. It is neither "bigotry" nor wrong to say so. It is a simple statement of fact. Judaism isn't Christianity either, but saying so doesn't mean I'm anti-Jew... it's just a statement of fact.

Now, I wonder how many people here are wondering the same thing I am? Is RJ really a DailyKoz plant?

Y'know, Warner, with you being so thin-skinned

December 20, 2007 - 12:21 ET by RJ

and hyper-sensitive, maybe you should think about whether you're in the wrong profession? Your constant resorting to immature personal attacks just because someone disagrees with you doesn't bode well for your professional growth.

I think that, in spite of your continued anti-Mormon ranting, you may actually believe you're not making emotional decisions about Romney....and you may actually believe that you're not attacking his religion. Yet it's revealing that you immediately fly off the handle with immature name calling, and claims that you've been insulted, just because you've been contradicted.

As for being a Daily Kos "plant", Warner, it's your behavior that most closely mirrors the style of that site.

Buy a mirror friend. Maybe

December 20, 2007 - 12:26 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Buy a mirror friend. Maybe Santa will bring you one?

Say hey to Markos for us. Thus ends our little discussions.

Right. Until the next time I contradict you

December 20, 2007 - 12:42 ET by RJ

....and you again fly into a name-calling rage (for the third time). ;^)

WTH... I was just

December 19, 2007 - 16:21 ET by bigtimer

WTH...

I was just wondering if you still will not vote if it is Romney vs. Clinton?

Just curious...

I have posted numerous times that so far Romney is my second choice if Thompson doesn't make it...just wanted to put that on the table in case you didn't know.

I will not vote...

December 20, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Warner Todd Huston

... for Romney in a Primary (which is what I was referring to I did not mean to say nominee. That was my inattention there). The general is another matter entirely. But, in the end, if our party had the disastrous misfortune to have this liar as our nominee I'd be forced to vote for him, of course.

But I will say right here, that he will be only a tiny, tiny bit better than Hillary. In fact, it might be a smarter long term vote to vote against Romney to force the GOP to retool for 2012. An argument can be made for this strategy.

I very much feel that a Romney presidency will utterly destroy the GOP and place the Dems in control for the foreseeable future. He will run far, far away from every single conservative cause and will so anger conservatives that they will assuredly start a third party somehow... or at the very least desert the GOP for many, many years to come.

The man is a liar. It's just that simple. Heck, just in the last two days he has had two lies revealed. One where he claimed he was never supportive of the baby killers of Planned Parenthood... until we now get photos of him at one of their fundraisers in 1994. And second Romney claimed that his father "marched with Martin Luther King, Jr." in civil rights marches. Now we find out that Mitt's father NEVER marched with MLK. And this was just the last two days!!!

Pile that on top of the "I've hunted all my life" lie, the "I was always pro-life" lie and about a half dozen others and we get a man with absolutely no principles at all.

How any self-respecting conservative could chose this man is beyond me.

WTH...

December 20, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Clear thinker

I pretty much feel the same way. The only difference for me is...

I won't vote for Romney. Why? RINO!

I won't vote for Huckabee. Why? RINO!

I won't vote for Guliani. Why? RINO!

I won't vote for McCain. Why? RINO!

That about covers it for the top tier candidates.

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/

Exactly on target!

December 20, 2007 - 11:25 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Exactly on target!

WTH.... Thanks for your

December 20, 2007 - 11:18 ET by bigtimer

WTH....

Thanks for your reply and how you see things....

I am a self-respecting conservative who may vote for him if Thompson doesn't make it...sorry that this seems to be beyond you though.

We all have different views...thats for sure.

I am a self-respecting

December 20, 2007 - 11:24 ET by Warner Todd Huston

I am a self-respecting conservative who may vote for him if Thompson doesn't make it...sorry that this seems to be beyond you though.

I will not vote for Romney in the primary under ANY circumstances. A primary vote should be on principle, not triangulation.

In the general when you're given no choice, then there are different reasons that force a vote. But, in a primary you have the best opportunity to vote on principle alone.

So, if Thompson and Hunter are both out of the race or not on my primary ballot.... then I cast no vote for president in the Primary.

Like I said, the general brings up a different reality that must be dealt with in not as stark terms as a primary vote.

As to principle, it would seem to me that if someone is a moderate conservative, then voting for Mitt the malleable would probably be fine. If they think, though, that they are a solid conservative, however, they should either reevaluate their claims to be conservative, or learn more about Mitt the liar before they pull that lever.

WTH.... Have you not seen

December 20, 2007 - 11:33 ET by bigtimer

WTH....

Have you not seen my Thompson/Hunter '08 posts since forever here on NBs?

I am talking about if for some reason in the primaries Thompson or Hunter pull out...

In the general I will vote for whoever is the man before I wil stay home and let the leftists win.

No...

December 20, 2007 - 11:46 ET by Warner Todd Huston

... I have not noticed that you were a Thompson/Hunter guy. Sorry. That, however, doesn't change a thing I said.

Again, I must caution, I misspoke to say "nominee" in the post above. I did not notice what I had typed, but I meant the primaries. If Mitt is the GOP's ACTUAL nominee for 2008 and not just a primary candidate, I'd have to think about voting for him.

But, I will also say that I am not disposed to automatically vote for him. I'd have to REALLY think hard about it.

You point to the SCOTUS as your main worry. I have no assurances that Mitt Romney will be much better for the SCOTUS than Hillary. Mitt has no history whatsoever of being interested in the Constitution. Zip. Nada. We have absolutely no expectations that he will appoint a constructionist judge. Zip. Nada.

Oh, he SAYS he will, but he has lied so much that we cannot believe him.

So, if he is the nominee, I will have to really think very hard before I vote for this man if he faces Shrillary.

If he faces Obama, then Romney does get my vote automatically. But if Romney faces Hillary? I cannot say with any satisfaction he'd be much different than her. And, for strategic reasons, since Mitt will be only the tiniest bit better than Hillary, there is an argument not to vote for him and allow Hillary to win.

I have read and reviewed this idea very closely. I understand the principle behind the strategy. So, that being the case, I will not automatically support Romney if he is the 2008 GOP nominee.

Read this closely to mean I am NOT saying I won't vote for him if he's the nominee. Just know I cannot stand the man and feel that there are many, many things that he will ruin if he becomes president. The key will be in deciding if his destruction of the country will be better than Hillary's.

WTH... And, for strategic

December 20, 2007 - 11:53 ET by bigtimer

WTH...

And, for strategic reasons, since Mitt will be only the tiniest bit better than Hillary, there is an argument not to vote for him and allow Hillary to win.

....Allow Hillary to win...allow?

You have got to be kidding?

What possible strategic reason could there ever be in this country to allow her to win?

I beg you for some real clarification for this reasoning....

Thanks....

Btw....I'm a dude-ette, as Rush would say...lol!

Sorry...

December 20, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Bigtimer,

Ooops. I did not know your gender. My apologies.

Now, yes... to allow Hillary to win was the point.

Listen, I truly believe that Mitt Romney will materially harm both the country and the GOP. He cannot be trusted to do ANYTHING he's said on the campaign trail and his history pretty much shows he will turn against every conservative principle we have because his voting record proves it. About the only left leaning thing we probably won't have to suffer from him is that he'll be a serial rapist like Clinton was.

So, here is the argument that I have seen. I think it has some merit.

If we are going to have a Republican who will pretty much be a second Bill Clinton, this will damage the party because it will so alienate the conservative wing that getting them back will be almost impossible. Without the conservatives, there IS NO Republican party. Without the conservatives the GOP hasn't the votes to win any national election. That is just a plain fact. If a Romney enters the White House and makes the conservatives (who are already about to quit the party) leave the party, the GOP is done.

So, here is the argument. Let Shrillary have it. She will rally the conservatives more solidly to the GOP. Her left leaning attempts to govern will anger the base and cause a big mid term turn out in 2010. She will be stymied from doing too much because she will so polarize everyone.

We have a model for this sort of frozen Federal govt right now. The Dems are the majority but cannot beat the GOP stalling tactics. Also, Bush has become such a lightening rod, neither side can advance too far.

So, in 4 years, she won't be able to do a whole heck of a lot under this scenario.

As to the war, I feel that she might not be too bad. Sure she claims to have different ideas than we do, however, she will be forced to prove she's "a man" and she may be almost as tough on the war as a left leaning Republican like Mitt would be. Also, she has really gotten in trouble with the far, far left for her stance on the war since the beginning.

So, I am somewhat doubtful that she will be able to veer too far left on the war and if she cannot get much else done... what's the big harm with her in office.

And, since Romney will so harm this party, let's put off our satisfaction and work for 2012. After all, if this liar wins in 2008 we are stuck with him in 2012, too!!

There. Now, that is the argument. Like I said, I see some merit there. I have not of course, decided that this is what I agree with, but it is something to think about carefully before voting for one of the worst liars we've seen for a long, long time.

So, this is why I would have to very carefully think about voting for Mitt if he is the nominee. It will be no automatic vote for me.

WTH... In my opinion

December 20, 2007 - 12:50 ET by bigtimer

WTH...

In my opinion Hillary winning would help destroy what is left of this country...there are 21/22 republican Senate seats up this time while the dems only have 11, this is very shaky and spooky, if she or any dem got momentum, plus their everyday cheating at the voting booth, like Ohio and Colorado (throw in NM and Wa. too) are getting prepared to do along with the lawyers at the ready, we are in big trouble, very big trouble, we need to support whoever the nominee ends up being with some zest to get people to the polls and vote hopefully a straight ticket for republican if possible, the House is not in great shape for us either...if we don't win the Presidency this time, She will destroy what is left if possible of our country, so will any of the others with the scenario of letting her or any dem win the WH...

The SC judges and other appointed Judges the dems would make and ram through will be the end of this country and the Constitution as we know it now.

We need to stay together IMHO more than any election in my memory now more than ever.

Remember...

December 20, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Warner Todd Huston

... one thing. A president can only do what a Congress will let him do! A president is no King.

If Shrillary cannot move Congress, she will be ineffective. If enough Republicans face her to a standstill and the GOP base is unified against her, she will not be able to get any of her leftist plans into play. Like I said, that is the gamble with letting her take office.

Again, I am not sure this is a perfect strategy, only that it has some merit.

WTH... That was my exact

December 20, 2007 - 13:20 ET by bigtimer

WTH...

That was my exact point in my post to you...do you understand what we are up against with the vacancies in our party if we do not gain enough Senators to block votes, filibuster, whatever you want to call it and a dem, especially the likes of her evilness gets in office.

We are in deep shite.....there is absolutely no strategy to let or allow her to win, we would be in big trouble...we have 21 vacancies to fill to their eleven....the House is another matter too....hope I am making it clear enough for you to understand my point here....in my opinion it would be completely asinine to allow any dem. to win for some sort of strategy that will hurt this country.

Well, that is what the

December 20, 2007 - 15:16 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Well, that is what the strategy I was talking about was focusing on. It assumes we are lost for 2008 (including those seats you are talking about here) and the strategy is focussed on 2010 and 2012.

That is the point of the strategy, To assume we lost 2008. It will make the final analysis dependent upon what it all looks like as we get closer to the vote date.

If it looks like we are cooked for '08 then we look to 2010 and 2012.

Like I said, I am not sold, but it makes some sense.