If the GOP does split up, then the social conservatives and defense interventionists are to blame. But it will be a good thing because fiscal conservatives will be free to join either a new party or a reformed Democratic party, maybe.

Populism is just euphamism for demagogery. Populism, or at least people carrying that banner, is what lead to the creation of the Federal Reserve, among other things, an institution which is more Wall Stree than Main Street and which screws Main Street for the benefit of some Wall Street bankers.

Be weary of populist candidates and messages, they could be hiding something sinister which far from benefiting the whole of the people, benefit some special interest.

I'll be wary, too.

Much like with the Dems in a year with no party incumbent running, the Reps face a diverse set of options. Balancing the fiscal conservative & social conservative agendas has been around for a while now. I suspect that whoever the nominee ends up being that we'll see the party come together around that person, particularly if that person selects a VP who'll provide some counter balance.

Even though I'd be categorized as a right wing conservative, my thoughts are that I'd rather have a Goldwater kind of guy who also isn't afraid of talking about his faith. Or to turn it around a bit, I'd be fine with a guy like Obama if he was right on the issues.

The president (and government overall) has some effect on our morality, but that effect pales in comparison to the effect it can have via the laws and policies it enacts... and the judges it appoints.

So if social and fiscal conservates are to be mutually exclusive - I'd go fiscal. But they don't have to be that way.

In Obama the Dems might just have someone who can bring real change and overcome the status quo which the party establishment prefer just the way it is and is why they have chosen Hillary. It will be a hard struggle in which there will be some losses as well as victories because you can bet the media, the lobbyists and "Washington" will be mostly against him because they like things the way they are too. If the rank and file Dems keep voting for him in the primaries though there's little the Dem establishment can do about it unless they want to risk another Republican President and Congress. The media and the rest of them can take Dick Cheney's advice if they can't do anything else.

Huckabee also promises real change from the sour divisiveness and corruption of Bush and Cheney. Not sure if he is much more competent or less stupid than Bush though, but he certainly couldn't be worse. His problem is that there are those three elements of the GOP that are also fighting it out for dominance and Huckabee pisses two of them off royally together with their shills like FOX and Limbaugh so he'll probably go down. They'll choose more of the same old, same old but "safer" like McCain or even Romney and Giuliani and lose for certain that way. Huckabee might just win and would certainly make a good showing but his populism is anathema to the greed and war wings of the GOP and his rapport with evangelical Christians doesn't sit too well with them either.

The fiscal cons (really the borrow and spend cons) have been riding the evangelicals like a cheap donkey for years, promising much but delivering little.
Huckleberry may be the price the GOPpers pay for all that cash and votes. Otherwise, they may just piss the jesus-juicers off enough to make them stay home. One of the reasons RudiG never stood a chance.

BLUE-
I think it's more of a case of people trying to redefine conservatism. Huck is hardly a conservative when it comes to taxes or immigration. Sure, he may be a good Christian and opposed to abortion/gay marriage, but that alone doesn't make him conservative.

Same for McCain... strong on defense, but out to lunch on immigration, campaign finance... and he's gone out of his way to denigrate social conservatives - at least he did when running against Bush for the nomination.

I have no idea whether Huck would accept the VP, but I could see him being a good addition. He helps shore up the nominee's perceived lack of "faith" pedigree and would also balance the ticket geographically if the nominee is Romney or Rudy.

On balance I'd say Romney's the most likely to win the nomination and also the most likely to defeat a Dem. But that's for another thread...

Mittens McHucklebiani. Does it really matter? Huck seems to have a single constituency, the one to which reproductive rights and same sex marriages still matter. That constituency *could* land the Huck a GOP nomination, but the corporations will have to spend a lot more bucks, steal a many more states than Florida and Ohio to perpetrate another fraud like George W. herm

Oohrah,

The GOP has a problem the way they have welded themselves to those with religion-driven social issues. I was watching a Youtube of Obama debating Keyes in Illinois and he put it so much better than I could in saying that his life was informed by his Christianity but that his policy positions would need to be more inclusive than those arising out of his Christian beliefs by themselves. This is the blind alley that the ooportunistic Rove and Bush have driven the GOP into. It was never apparent to me that either of them cared all that much about the issues that are important to this voting bloc once their votes were in. Their post-election treatment of the faith-based charity and public welfare people being a case in point; as for Cheney, he either didn't give a damn or was even on the other side of such issues but kept his mouth shut about them.

However what's done is done and the identification of right wing politics with "Christian" social positions may be the party's cross to bear(couldn't resist) for some time to come. We do after all live in a multi-cultural society and it will only trend more that way in the future, sorry about that but that's the way it is even if a large segment of right-wing support wish it were not. By wedding itself to the past for the short-term political gain of a corrupt administration the GOP has probably consigned itself to the wilderness for a time. They deserve it.

BLUE-
A thoughtful post. Thanks.

I agree it's both wrong strategically and also improper for a candidate to solely appeal to just one constituency. I'm not sure I'd categorize Huck in that regard, but he's closer than Bush was or anyone short of Robertson that I can think of in recent times.

From my standpoint as a Christian conservative... I've witnessed a continued effort to marginalize or eliminate much of the history and tradition upon which our nation was founded and developed. For many years people like me were instructed to be "above" politics of the world and to focus instead on God's will.

We saw laws/judicial orders which have helped tear the moral fabric of our nation. So we have felt under attack/threat. Instead of mobilizing militarily we flexed our muscle at the ballot box, just as anyone else is entitled to do.

Reps recognized a large constituency wasn't being courted and made the move to court us. You can certainly argue it was a bad move for Reps to make, but what's done is done. Frankly, if it hadn't been done I wonder if we wouldn't have had a viable third party by now. And Dems would rule the roost since voters would split between the "social" and "fiscal" conservatives.

I think Rep voters need to realize the bigger enemy/problem is liberalism and the issues of Dem leadership. So we might have to hold our nose if we're not getting the ideal person. The alternative is a Dem in office, which is the greater of two evils so to speak.

"marginalize or eliminate much of the history"

My irony meter just exploded.

:)

OOHRAH

I"d have to dig awhile to find it online, but the head of the WH office of "Faith" liason made mocking and derogatory remarks about how 'gullible' the religious right was in supporting them. I"m not making that up. I recall vividly the reports once the email came to light.

Just one more point on our discussion the other day about how the religious right has focused on abortion only rather than the myriad of 'Christian' values Christ taught.

If you're 'pro-life' you should be opposed to the death penalty as well, shouldn't you? Show me where Jesus said it's OK to execute somebody and I'll eat my computer.

From my standpoint as a Christian conservative... I've witnessed a continued effort to marginalize or eliminate much of the history and tradition upon which our nation was founded and developed. For many years people like me were instructed to be "above" politics of the world and to focus instead on God's will... posted by Oohrah

The history and tradition on which our nation was founded were probably secondary at the time to the immediate and dangerous need to rid ourselves of imperial Britain. And weren't Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison and other movers and shakers in our founding Deists rather than Christians, anyway? So equating Christian belief with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is invalid. The Constitution specifically says no religious tests are to be applied within our government.

As for the way our nation was developed there are things like our Christianity running concurrently with slavery, Jim Crow and the identification of Christianity with the KKK to be explained away.

I'm not suggesting that any of this is Christianity's "fault", in fact I'd argue the other way but saying that Christianity was the bedrock of our founding and has been or should have been the inspiration for everything since is equally invalid.

I don't see how anybody is supposed to know what God's will is but I don't think the rest of us have been telling you to focus on it. My own position is that as a member of a democracy you are free to believe anything you wish but that governance is one thing and faith is another. Nobody is trying to take away your right to faith but equally you shouldn't try to impose it on the governance of others who don't share that faith. That hasn't been the case lately and we need to get back to when it was. The founders got it right when they said there should be a clear separation between religion and government.

Not actually Kuo himself who derided the Christians. He wrote about those who did.

Oh my!

For many years people like me were instructed to be "above" politics of the world and to focus instead on God's will.

This morning's sermon must have been particularly rhetorical.

You were instructed correctly. Neither your religion nor the religion of anyone else should carry any dominance in the political climate of our politics. This Evangelical voting bloc should have NO relevance. As a matter of fact, any politician who specifically courts this or any other religious block should ALWAYS be defeated.

The management of our country should never be based upon the values of any single religion. Our laws should be based on a universal set of values that most people may agree on equally. From that point, if any particular group wishes to live by a stricter set of rules then those set down as universal, they may do so within their group. Past a universal set of rules, they should not be able to force their moral will upon all.

I think Rep voters need to realize the bigger enemy/problem is liberalism and the issues of Dem leadership. So we might have to hold our nose if we're not getting the ideal person. The alternative is a Dem in office, which is the greater of two evils so to speak.

I think voters in general need to realize the political divide this type of thinking has caused. We need to consider what candidate is going to be best for the management of the United States, management being defense and public works, NOT religious idealism. We need to stop worrying about what political label, such as liberal or dem or repub or con, is attached to a candidate. IMO, you demonstrate a certain ignorance by simply lumping the words liberal and Dem together.

A candidate's flavor of faith should have nothing to do with their ability to manage government. We shouldn't even care if we know what region they are. IMO, if we do care about their flavor of religion, our ability to understand the character of a candidate on other issues is greatly diminished.

I think Rep voters need to realize the bigger enemy/problem is liberalism and the issues of Dem leadership. So we might have to hold our nose if we're not getting the ideal person.

Oohrah, as a fellow Republican (and Christian) who has been derogatorily called a RINO constantly by "Christian Conservatives" for the past year because I am a social moderate -- the idea of GOP party unity in 2008 ain't gonna happen no matter who the candidate is, if this inter-party animosity the past year is any measure.

Whether it is McCain, Romney, Rudy, Thompson or Huckabee -- each has alienated a certain segment of the Republican party and will never get their votes.

McCain will never be forgiven by a chunk of Republicans for Mccain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and that he voted against the Bush tax cuts.

Romney is another "slick willie" who will do or say anything to get elected. He is just not trustworthy to a significant portion of the GOP. He'll be the GOP "kerry" if he gets the nomination.

Rudy, who I support, is written off immediately by many in the GOP for sticking with his pro-choice (albeit with restrictions) views - and that's even before the harsh judgement of other socially moderate views and of his personal life by many of his fellow Republicans. His successes at transforming NYC, and running what George Will called the "most conservative government in the US in the past 50 years" be damned.

Thompson, was supposed to be another Reagan -- but instead of "star quality" he has been downright stodgy and boring -- and a look at his record shows he was a mediocre Senator at best.

And Huckabee is the most personally likeable -- but he has made his religion the cornerstone of his whole campaign -- he was fiscally liberal in AK, seems a bit clueless about the goings on in the world, and says crazy things like he would have had the US government "quarantine" homosexuals because of their lifestyle at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. Is that supposed to be "inspirational" to blue-state republicans like me? I don't think so.

It all adds up to a real possibility that the GOP convention will be brokered and the party is hoplessly fractured no matter what.

While the democrats seem more unified then they have in my lifetime.

It's very discouraging to say the least. Because as you point out the direction that liberals and democrats want to take this nation -- is far worse then that of any of the GOP candidates (except of course, Ron paul).

The management of our country should never be based upon the values of any single religion. Our laws should be based on a universal set of values that most people may agree on equally.

Whatsleft, That is an inherently contradictory statement. There is no "universal' set of values. Nor is a persons values necessarily determined by religion. All elections are about trying to elect someone who is going to best represent your views, and your values.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. My point was that Oohrah seems to want his religion to determine the nation's values, which also may be a misinterpretation.

No single religion should ever have a strong influence where it conflicts with someone's personal views, and where those views hurt no one else.

I don't wish to take your right to practice your religion, but I do not believe you have any right to force your religion.

Religion hasn't taught morality and civility for many generations, if they ever did. Most of organized religion's lessons are an example in hypocrisy. Our government is not in the business of teaching morality either. It IS in the business of enforcing law, and perhaps creating law promoting civility, but mostly to the point where uncivil action is harmful to otherwise civil people. It'd be nice if they'd remember that.

Morality and civility are taught by example. There's another thread going right now that's a prime example of what NOT to do with regard to these issues. I hope Bowa would even agree with that.

Paul is popular because he is anti-Bush. This makes him very unpopular with the GOP establishment and their shills as FOX is proving right this very minute. His views on his preferred religion are bizarre and impractical in my opinion as Bowa's post shows.

If the right wants to conduct a long rearguard action to establish an official religion in America then that is their right. We have the right to oppose it on Constitutional grounds as well as practical ones. This does not make us "perverse, elitist or even secular" as Paul says and Bowa agrees, this makes us defenders of the Constitution.

I know it will only encourage them to persist in it but I'm sick to death of being called an elitist by supporters of George W. Bush. Bush is a walking, talking example of the undeserved privileges that elitism brings from his Vietnam "service" to his selection as President.

The Constitution of the United States - Article 6.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

...fiscal conservatives will be free to join either a new party or a reformed Democratic party, maybe.

Posted by member2586 at 2008-01-05 11:16 PM | Reply |

Holy Larry King on a pogo stick!
And Dennis Kuchinich will lead our country to the planet Kolub....it's a cookbook!

Fiscal conservatives and any form of Democrats--completely impossible!

I hope some of you are paying attention; Rush and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham et al. are SOOOO pissed about Huckabee. I heard Hannity say on Friday that "we need a true Reagan-style conservative like Romney, Thompson, or GUILIANI." These guys serve the idol of tax-cuts and their idol blinds them to every other issue.

Their true natures are far from Christian conservatives, they just use them to get to their own ends it appears.

Mr. Huckabee's victory is an indication that the Republicans also have a big tent" that assembles people with a wide range of ideas. Mr. Huckabee is something of a wolf in sheep's clothing insofar as his political stance is concerned. He holds views on abortion and the status of homosexuals that are apodictic. Because of this he finds himself in the Republican camp.

But Mr. Huckabee's views on other matters including taxation and spending, immigration policy, trade policy, policies euphemistically called affirmative action, maudlin sentimentality dictating policies toward criminals in regard to punishment and rehabilitation, are aligned with the views of extreme liberals.

But for his stances on abortion and homosexual policy, Mr. Huckabee is a dyed in the wool leftist, whose views are divorced from those of "others in the tent."

It is not necessary to focus on the role of religion in formulation of policy, but rather assessment of the policies and determination if the person holding them is a suitable representative of the Republican view.

I oppose abortion. I think that the concept of "homosexual marriage" is oxymoronic. I oppose conferring special rights and privileges on any group. But I view homosexuals as impaired in their biological function, and so would not intrude on their being able to experience "gaiety" in their lives, or intrude in their private existence, so I may be far more "tolerant" of homosexuals and their activities than Mr. Huckabee.

That said, on almost every other issue on which I'm aware of Mr. Huckabee's position, he and I part company. And as I noted, I probably support far less intrusion in the lives of homosexuals than Mr. Huckabee.

"Fiscal conservatives and any form of Democrats--completely impossible"

Fat talk from the party that ran up the largest deficits since the dawn of time via tax cuts during war and spending like drunken sailors.

"I think that the concept of "homosexual marriage" is oxymoronic."

Funny, isn't it? Johnson never heard of Canada. Or The Netherlands. Or Massachusetts.

"I oppose conferring special rights and privileges on any group."

Gays haven't asked for any special rights. And you can't name one "special" right gays want which my wife and I didn't get automatically when we said "I do".

Johnson has some odd notions on the impairment of biological function of homosexuals, but his tumescent ardor for obscure words wins the priapistic award for "apodictic".

"It is apodictic that Michaelangelo could not have made his brilliant contribution to western civilization had he been a heterosexual married male."

FF, Sag!

Populism is just euphamism for demagogery.
Member2586, do you use the same to describe Obama?

Sheesh people...it was only Iowa.

"Sheesh people...it was only Iowa. "

It was only a flesh wound!

Huckster won Iowa.
Romulan won Wyoming.
McTaint might win New Hampshire, whoever it is it WON'T be Chuckleberry.

Huckster WILL pick up South Carolina.

Remember folks, you heard it here first!

Spud luffs the crazy quilt of conflicted GOPher-lemmings all unsure which cliff they are supposed to be rushing towards.

S'fun fer Spud.

Spud, admittedly, has a whacky sense of humour! ^_^

Be Well.