Bye, bye Fred Thompson

[Ben Kenobi]

That leaves the GOP with a Mormon, whom the conservative Evangelicals won't vote for and the Evangelic who takes all of Christ's admonitions to heart, not just the ones that serve business.

I understand but as I said earlier there are other things that are also important to Christ. Huckabee's making a show of things, that really shouldn't be an issue.

Another important teaching is not to let your right hand know what the left is doing. It's important that the giving is voluntary not that everyone knows about it. Increasing taxes isn't charitable giving, it's wealth redistribution. How can we credit someone for what they have to do rather then what they choose to do?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't but the NYT analysis that the support going to Fred is going to go to Huckabee. Those who are still with him seem more like fans of McCain.

Quite the opposite. Fred was running as a social conservative (McCain's not), a fiscal conservavtive (McCain's not), and a dyed-in-the-wool Republican (McCain's not) -- his supporters will go to everyone but McCain. The big problem for McCain will be if a significant faction defect to Giuliani. That could hand Rudy Florida.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo
And he's a fundie...

Exactly, which was going to be my reply to Che. Huckabee is a bigoted fundie and although Romney may be ostracized by the rest of the Christian fundies, he is no less bigoted; Mormonism has its own brand of bigotry.

I also strongly suspected of Thompson being bigoted toward gays and lesbians as well.

Also, Huckabee has no qualams about using Christian beliefs and the Bible to guide government policy and legislation. He's just down right scary in so many ways.

[Ben Kenobi]

Quite the opposite. Fred was running as a social conservative (McCain's not), a fiscal conservavtive (McCain's not), and a dyed-in-the-wool Republican (McCain's not) -- his supporters will go to everyone but McCain. The big problem for McCain will be if a significant faction defect to Giuliani. That could hand Rudy Florida.

Well I want to hear this. Why is McCain neither fiscally or socially conservative? The man has a staunch voting record. McCain is just a bit to the left of Fred.

[MrFun]

Oh, and for the record, I believe that generally, the more secular Republicans are a lesser evil than the religious-right Republicans.

[Ramo]

He had a few interesting heresies in the '99 to '03 period (i.e. opposition to the Bush tax cuts, opposing overturning Roe, etc.). He has subsequently fallen in line, though. Then there's McCain-Feingold.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
He was the best nominee, IMO, everyone's second choice. The only knock against him is that he didn't seem to 'want' it enough. Frankly I liked him more for that, I would trust a reluctant leader then I would someone who's spent their entire lives leading up for the moment.

I may have to agree with che's nediverse crack. What in the Hell are you on? Everyone's "second choice" makes for a horrible candidate. Because obviously he has something lacking.

And if you think anyone who is running for President is "reluctant" then I have bridge to sell you in Arizona.

That's pretty arrogant.

It's also true. Look at the poll numbers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well I want to hear this. Why is McCain neither fiscally or socially conservative? The man has a staunch voting record. McCain is just a bit to the left of Fred.

I believe he was talking about the perception of McCain. There are a lot of Republicans that consider McCain to be some sort of leftie Republican for his views on a handful of issues (illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, the Bush tax cuts, etc).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well I want to hear this. Why is McCain neither fiscally or socially conservative? The man has a staunch voting record. McCain is just a bit to the left of Fred.

McCain's running as both, but his voting record and public statements show him not to be one of the true believers. McCain voted against extending the Bush tax cuts, for example. He's also pro-immigration reform, anti-torture, and has sponsored campaign finance reform and gun control legislation. He has, on different issues, been very publically allied with extreme liberals like Ted Kennedy (immigration) and Russ Feingold (campaign finance). All of that makes him the only Republican candidate I could even think of voting for, but that's what makes him anathema to rank-and-file Republicans, who make up Thompson's support.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's pretty arrogant.

Good news for a believing Christian like you, Ben: I believe it's one of the signs of the End of Days when Che's analysis basically agrees with that of ... George Will!

A GOP Numbers Crunch

By George F. Will
Sunday, January 13, 2008; Page B07

The first year of the 2008 campaign -- think about that -- has clearly established that the Republican Party's prospects are cloudy. In the first two major contests, Mike Huckabee has finished first and third, John McCain fourth and first, Mitt Romney second twice. Rudy Giuliani has been treading water, waiting for Florida, which on Jan. 29 will allocate more convention delegates (114) than Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire combined (92). So, clinging to cliches as to a lifeline, Republicans congratulate themselves on how evenly the party's strengths, such as they are, are spread among their candidates.

But although only one-third of 1 percent of the national electorate -- those who have participated in the Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire nominating events -- have spoken, the Democrats have even more reason than they did three weeks ago to look forward to a rollicking November. Realistic Republicans are looking for shelter.

Nov. 4 could be their most disagreeable day since Nov. 3, 1964. Actually, this November could be even worse, because in 1964 Barry Goldwater's loss of 44 states served a purpose, the ideological reorientation and revitalization of the party. Which Republican candidate this year could produce a similarly constructive loss?

Today, all the usual indicators are dismal for Republicans. If that broad assertion seems counterintuitive, produce a counterexample. The adverse indicators include: shifts in voters' identifications with the two parties (Democrats now 50 percent, Republicans 36 percent); the tendency of independents (they favored Democratic candidates by 18 points in 2006); the fact that Democrats hold a majority of congressional seats in states with 303 electoral votes; the Democrats' strength and the Republicans' relative weakness in fundraising; the percentage of Americans who think the country is on the "wrong track"; the Republicans' enthusiasm deficit relative to Democrats' embrace of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be nominated.

Iowa and New Hampshire were two of the three states (New Mexico was the third) that changed partisan alignment between 2000 and 2004 -- Iowa turning red, New Hampshire blue. This month, Democratic participation was twice the Republican participation in Iowa and almost 22 percent higher in New Hampshire. George W. Bush won Iowa by just 0.67 percent of the vote. Whomever the Republicans nominate should assume that he must replace Iowa's seven electoral votes if he is to reach Bush's 2004 total of 286.

Republicans try to take comfort from the fact that 61 Democratic members of Congress represent districts that President Bush carried in 2004. But 37 of those won with at least 55 percent of the vote. Furthermore, 14 Republican representatives won in 2006 by a single percentage point or less.

Granted, in the past 150 years, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter (barely) are the only Democrats to achieve 50 percent of the popular vote. And this year Democrats might still give Republicans the gift of Hillary Clinton, who probably has a popular vote ceiling of 52 percent. A subliminal -- too much so -- subtext of Obama's message is that Clinton cannot receive the big mandate required for big changes: Enactment of Social Security in 1935 followed Franklin Roosevelt's 57.4 percent victory in 1932, and in 1965 Medicare came after Lyndon Johnson's 61 percent victory over Barry Goldwater.

But even if Democrats nominate Clinton, Republicans must remember that Bush's 2.4-point margin of victory in 2004 was unimpressive: In the 12 previous reelections of presidents, the average margin of victory was 12.9 points. Bush's 50.7 percent of the vote in 2004 was the third-smallest for a reelected president (Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton won 49.2 percent in 1916 and 1996, respectively). Kerry's 48.3 percent was the largest ever against a president being reelected. (In the 12 previous reelections, no losing candidate received more than 46.1 percent; nine of the losers received less than 45 percent.)

Tuesday's Republican primary is in one of the nation's worst-governed states. Under a Democratic governor, Michigan has been taxed into a one-state recession. Native son Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate who best understands how wealth is created, might revive his campaign by asking: Whom do you want to be president in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts, which McCain opposed, expire? Can automakers endure more regulations such as the fuel efficiency mandates that climate-fixers such as McCain favor? Do you want a president (Mike Huckabee, proponent of a national sales tax of at least 30 percent) pledged to radically increase the proportion of federal taxes paid by the middle class?

Republicans should try to choose the next president. They cannot avoid choosing how their party will define itself, even if by a loss beneath a worthy banner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103279.html

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We could definitely do a lot worse as far a GOP candidates go.

We really, really couldn't.

[Ben Kenobi]

I may have to agree with che's nediverse crack. What in the Hell are you on? Everyone's "second choice" makes for a horrible candidate. Because obviously he has something lacking.

I'm not sure I see it...

He's not as fiscal conservative as Ron Paul or RudyG. The Rockefeller wing of the party seems to be behind Rudy. So he doesn't convey their support, but he's more fiscal conservative then the rest of the field.

He's not as social conservative as Huckabee, who attracts their votes, but he's too social conservative for the supporters of RudyG.

That's why he tends to be everyone's second choice. The internal party divisions all have a peculiar champion, none of which is him. I've heard numerous commentaries saying exactly this Thompson is a great candidate in the Reagan mould, but they all have one complaint, his lack of a campaign.

I'm disappointed he's out. He has all the right policy behind him. He would do a good job as a president. He's just not anyone's champion.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker




We really, really couldn't.

Guiliani.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

No way.

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe he was talking about the perception of McCain. There are a lot of Republicans that consider McCain to be some sort of leftie Republican for his views on a handful of issues (illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, the Bush tax cuts, etc).

Strange perception, but ok. He isn't a lefty republican not according to his voting record. I do have concerns with him over his past antics and his maverick reputation, but his competitors all have their own issues.

Romney's a recent convert from Massachusetts. He strikes me as a NE liberal 'stealth' candidate in the mould of souter.

RudyG's the unabashed candidate for the Rockefeller republicans, he's honest about where he stands, but his policies I can't support.

Ron Paul, I'm going to look at him more carefully now that Thompson is out. Reserving judgement.

McCain, the old battle horse back again for another shot. War hero, maverick, calls his own shots, lead the Gang of 14 which scuttled many judges. He's a mixed bag. Managed to anger pretty much everyone at some point in time.

Huckabee. Gosh I want to say I'd vote for him, but man, it would be tough. I feel he would expand the state but otherwise I completely agree. I have no problem with the evangelical or any of the common complaints, just his social programs. I'm going to have to look at him more carefully now.