"Winning isn't everything; but the will to win is everything."
- Lombardi
Posted on 01/07/2008 5:11:25 PM PST by NavVet
"My question for you evangelicals is this. If you’re looking for a real conservative, why are you supporting Huckabee? He’s completely discredited himself. What about Fred Thompson? If you’re looking for a real conservative. Huckabee is constantly engaging in class warfare against the producers. This laid-off line, it’s an attack on Romney, but it’s an attack on producers. It’s an attack on employers. It’s pure populism. He does oppose school choice! You don’t get the NEA endorsement in New Hampshire by supporting school choice."
(Excerpt) Read more at fredfile.fred08.com ...
None at all.
What I am saying is that once you scratch under the Christian paint you've got a populist/liberal politician.
First of all, it is not Christian "paint". Huck can't be assailed from a position of his Christianity being a veneer. Otherwise, I agree with the statement, not that it matters to the Christians.
That's what I am suggesting you do - put it all in gear.
I assure you, I already have, as have most on this board.
You may not like the way I said what I did, but what was the content of what I said? You didn't answer that, just how it was posed (your opinion).
Huck's social positions are pretty unassailable, and that is what the Christians look for. To suggest that they are not conservative because they look for those social issues and are less concerned with the rest, one must then say that libertarians are not conservative either, because they aren't socially conservative.
My choice is, and will always be Duncan Hunter because he is the Conservative in the race... He serves all three legs of the Reagan Conservative Coalition, including the issues Social Conservatives are looking for.
I take exception to the rough treatment of my brethren who have chosen Huckabee. I disagree with their choice, but I can see what they are after.
That is so wrong on so many levels. I won't vouch for Fred's heart. That is between him and God.
No one, no one tells me who is right with God. It's such a personal thing, I don't get people who let other people tell them what to to.
Rush has been challenging my female patience lately! The foot-stomping shrill part of me wants him to *do the right thing, dammit, and endorse NOW!* -- I have to step back to realize that just as he'd have no respected right to tell me how to proceed, I have no right to tell him. It's the faithful old stand-by guide: Do unto others -- in this case, do NOT unto others what I would not have them do unto me.
A surprising result is that I find my regard for Rush soaring. He is standing by his principle and does it out of respect for his listeners. He's who he is, and he knows this is a question the voters -- his listeners among them -- decide. He must remain a bystander to be true to himself.
My reason for rejecting Romney is the same that I have for rejecting Giuliani. The two are different sides to the same coin. I think both are sincere, good guys, and have a lot of remarkable and admirable qualities. Both are hands-on managers who liberally apply regulation and oversight and direction to "solve" problems in government and business. The coin whose sides they share is Government Growth. The more serious question that raises is that they therefore don't embrace true conservatism. When they promise things like "conservative" judges, they're sincere in all their intentions. The problem is: they're not conservative -- hence they won't know how to identify conservative judges. Trusting that to them would be asking for trouble.
I see that and say that in many ways because of what I've learned from Rush and others over the years. Over those years, I've also come to appreciate the rare consistency of Rush. Other conservative "personalities" rise and ebb in my estimation, but for the past 18 or so years, Rush has stayed consistently inspiring.
Precisely true.
But I’m not going to blame folks whom the GOP backed into a corner.
Hat tip.
If Huckabee is the nominee, and especially if Huckabee were to win in the general, Ed Rollins will have been proved right about the Reagan coalition being dead.
Huck can't win the nomination anymore than Fred can. The two will split the Conservatives. That doesn't mean Reagan Conservatism is dead, it only means that the factions thereof are not willing to work together, and the blame can be laid at the feet of ALL. What is inevitable at that point is a Romney or Giuliani nomination.
Ellery, your position is a well considered one, and I thank you for your post.
The Huck Sucks! Do you really believe in in-state tuition grants to illegals, or making D.C. a **state**? Huck does. He’s been described as a “compassionate conservative on steroids”, and he is. Cordially, Bob
Social issues don’t count for much compared to religious freedom - and big government is the enemy of religious freedom.
If abortion is all you care about, Huckabee may be better...but if you want to worship God in freedom, Fred is a much better choice.
As my tag line says, “Without limited government, there is no religious freedom!”
What is the logic behind your “faction”, please. Best, Bob
"Winning isn't everything; but the will to win is everything."
- Lombardi
I think it stunning that no other candidate recognizes the efficacy of these late night appearances, not only for the timing that precedes elections, but for the free national exposure they provide. Huckabee has the will to win.
A candidate DID finally emerge who is capable of defeating the establishment country-club gang, but oh well, his name wasn't the oh so-holy Reagan reincarnated "Fred Thompson", so they have nothing but scorn and hatred for him.
Demonizing Huckabee won't save Fred's campaign. Only they can save Fred's campaign, by getting Fred to demonstrate he has the energy and vision to lead this nation and take out Hillobama. Fred was polling a close second nationally, it was his election to lose, and he lost it. You know it's bad for Fred when his supporters are gloating about his distant third place win in Iowa (beating out McCain by 1% to avoid fourth place), when a few monthes ago they were constantly smirking about how he was 2nd across the entire nation "without ever announcing or campaigning a single minute". Remember how we all "feared Fred's" inevitiable win? He's less popular when he's actually out there seeking the job than when he was at home doing nothing. Hmmm.
I can't seriously consider Fred because his campaign apperances right now show me that he'd be little more than Bob Dole for Prez '96 and Jim Ryan for Gov '02 redux if he was nominated. That is, he'll "go through the motions" of running against the Democrat, and have a credible showing, but get defeated fairly comfortably in a lackluster, uninspiring campaign. These guys are the kind of people that seem like they need to be hit with a cattle prod to come to life. You wanna constantly prod them going "Come ON!! At least PRETEND you want the job!! WAKE UP!!"
My father always told me the average American voter was.....................never mind.
Evidently some seem to be stupid, going for a Dem in Republican clothes. The real difference between Huck and the Dem candidates is that he is against abortion. We sure need a liberal republican trying to beat a Dem in the general. It will be a slaughterhouse! Keep firing Rush! Seems like you have hit a nerve among the Huckleberry camp!
Namely that he does no go to church, and that his faith would not be a big part of his campaign.
Those two points alone = big turn-off for the Christian crowd.
***But when the Pro life evangelicals grow weary of Huckabee, they’ll feel very comfortable in the camp of pro-life, evangelical conservative Duncan Hunter.
Rush has said that it’s not his job to endorse a particular candidate, but it sounds like he has, at least on an implicit level.
I think they prefer Christians who understand the value of fellowship, and are a member of a bible-believing church where they and their families can worship and enjoy the communion of believers.
That’s a pretty dumb statement, considering that FRed announce he was running on Jay Leno’s show.
Point of reference, I think the exact quote is, “Winning isn’t everything; but the will to win is the only thing.”
But Rush is stone-dead wrong on this one. If the Christians had wanted Fred, they'd have picked him in the first place. Instead, they hauled Huck up outta the basement. There is a reason for that.
***But when the Pro life evangelicals grow weary of Huckabee, they’ll feel very comfortable in the camp of pro-life, evangelical conservative Duncan Hunter.
That is my hope as well. If Hunter starts to move up, I would hope a bunch of them would jump on board.
I am a conservative, Evangelical Christian, but I think Fred best represents my interests and values. As far as abortion goes, Fred advocates a more practical, achieveable solution that likely would save the most lives. (Overturning Roe vs. Wade rather than HLA that would be nearly impossible to pass.) Fred has more endorsements from pro-life organizations than any other candidate, so that speaks well of him.
Also, as a Christian, I’m in favor of less federal government involvement in my life. I don’t want government giving orders from “on high”. I look to scriptures to show me how to conduct myself.
It is the job of Christians and the Church to give to those in need. Scriptures do not tell us give a portion of our money to the government to be doled out through government bureaus. We are to be His hands and His feet.
Something about Huckabee doesn’t sit right with me. Perhaps he is genuine. Only God knows his heart. However, his constant faith references seem to me to be for political gain. I have a lot of Christian friends, but I don’t know of any I would like to be president.
Also, Huckabee seems weak on national security. I think Fred would do a better job of protecting my family, and that’s a concern for people of any faith.
I can see how you could misunderstand. I think the value of appearing now, on the evenings preceding an actual election, in the middle of the primary season when people are actually starting to pay attention to the candidates is inestimable. Allowing people to become familiar with you now, when a decision about you needs to be made is good campaigning. An announcement on a popular show might have been a good move at the time, but it doesn't have the same impact on the electorate that an appearance now would have.
Good points, I agree.
I don’t how “identity politics” plays into this. If I was an Armenian supporting an Armenian candidate, or a white guy supporting the white guy, or a black guy supporting a black guy or a woman supporting the woman, none of those would be things you choose, they are all things you are raised with (well, aside from the sex-change creepy thing). So when folks say that christians shouldn’t be engaging in “identity politics”, exactly what does that mean? Christians CHOSE to be christians. Blacks didn’t choose to be black, and Armenians didn’t choose (for the most part) to be Armenians, it was dealt to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.