Replies

Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda.

Back when the "other faction" thought it's media could stuff Giuliani down our throats, we were told time and again how we had to set aside our quaint little beliefs about the sanctity of life and marriage as you scolded us for our "intolerance" of "alternative lifestyles".

Well, Mr. Will, when the alternatives offered to us are in the form of Rudy McRomney who (no matter what he says now) is not pro-life and who still thinks the radical gay agenda is "chic", you should have expected the "fusion" to end. It was you, not us, who flushed the coalition. Aside from Mr. Huckabee, there is not one pro-life candidate running for President right now.

And, as we are the majority of voters in the GOP, watch what happens to your Georgetown cocktail circuit.

This paragraph, I agree with.

However Thompson and McCain are pro life. Will has a tendency to just blame Huck, who, by the way, I do not like. Will forgets his bunch of aging dopes created him.

The answer? No one gets to have it just "their way" or we lose.

When I fought against Rooty tooth and nail, I sure didn't want a Huckster to emerge.People need to get over their hurt feelings and get on to a candidate we can all get behind.

I agree with several of your points. However, IMO Mike Huckabee certainly does not stand alone as the "one pro-life candidate". I think the National Right to Life Committee (along with a growing list of individual state RTL committees) would disagree with you too given their endorsement of Fred Thompson.

Regarding the fusion of the conservative factions, I've posted this little exercise (along with my ratings):

Social Conservatives (SC) – Abortion; pro-traditional marriage; conservative Judicial appointments; pro-free exercise of religion; school choice; enforcing borders; family values; 1st amendment; 2nd amendment; there’s more

National Security Conservatives (NS) – Strong foreign policy; Aggressive posture on war & interrogation methods; enforcing borders; tough on crime; there’s plenty more

Fiscal Conservatives (FC) – tax policy (cuts); spending curbs; smaller, not bigger government; immigration laws enforced; national health policy; social security policy; there’s plenty more

My numerical ranking (1 best, 5 worst) of the “top 5” (polling nationally):

SC NS FC

Huckabee

1 5 5

Romney

3 4 2

Thompson

1 1 1

McCain

4 1 3

Giuliani

5 1 4

So IMO, it’s Fred, hands down (and I need to go to the html sandbox).

(other rankings invited)

Back when the "other faction" thought it's media could stuff Giuliani down our throats, we were told time and again how we had to set aside our quaint little beliefs about the sanctity of life and marriage as you scolded us for our "intolerance" of "alternative lifestyles". Well, Mr. Will, when the alternatives offered to us are in the form of Rudy McRomney who (no matter what he says now) is not pro-life and who still thinks the radical gay agenda is "chic", you should have expected the "fusion" to end. It was you, not us, who flushed the coalition. Aside from Mr. Huckabee, there is not one pro-life candidate running for President right now. And, as we are the majority of voters in the GOP, watch what happens to your Georgetown cocktail circuit.
4 posted on 01/06/2008 10:04:25 AM PST by advance_copy

If they don't come up with a plan to make middle class family life more affordable, they can forget about any "fusion" dynasties. No civilization survives the loss of its middle class or normal family life. Some of these pundits spend too much time inside-the-beltway indulging Rudy fantasies and other delusions. With their second and third wives, girlfriends, and mistresses.

The weaknesses in the Rudy formula were going to be exploited by somebody. That's a no-brainer. George Will should be smart enough to understand that. Maybe he hasn't tallied the math for middle class family expenses in housing, education, or gasoline very recently.

Reagan was a much better candidate than Rudy or Romney. His pro-life positions a very integral part of the fusionist "Reagan coalition" that solidified the conservative movement.

Tax cuts on capital agains alone do not deliver "fusionist" victories. The GOP needs pro-life Evangelicals and Catholics to do that. And they need a good cross section of the middle class. Giuliani's candidacy can't deliver that. A winning GOP candidate needs support outside of the Chevy Chase and Georgetown cocktail circuit.

Back to PoliSci 101 for Mr. Will.

Ronald Reagan, President of the United States (1981-1989)

1980: landslide (44 states, 489 electoral votes) Reagan's position: pro-life

1984: landslide (49 states, 525 electoral votes) Reagan's position: pro-life