Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion
Townhall.com ^ | January 6, 2008 | George Will

Posted on 01/06/2008 9:51:23 AM PST by Kaslin

WASHINGTON -- Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.

He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrinking middle class. Well.

The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion By George Will Sunday, January 6, 2008 Send an email to George Will Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (393) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

WASHINGTON -- Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.

He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrinking middle class. Well.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee removes his microphone after a interview at a hotel in Manchester, New Hampshire, January 4, 2008. Mike Huckabee's surprising victory in Iowa on Thursday turned the Republican race for U.S. president upside down, but his path to the party's presidential nomination was far from certain. REUTERS/Carlos Barria (UNITED STATES) Related Media:

VIDEO: 'I Love Iowa'

VIDEO: Huckabee Wins GOP Iowa Caucuses

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.

Huckabee told heavily subsidized Iowa -- Washington's ethanol enthusiasm has farm values and incomes soaring -- that Americans striving to rise are "pushed down every time they try by their own government." Edwards, synthetic candidate of theatrical bitterness on behalf of America's crushed, groaning majority, says the rich have an "iron-fisted grip" on democracy and a "stranglehold" on the economy. Strangely, these fists have imposed a tax code that makes the top 1 percent of earners pay 39 percent of all income tax revenues, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent, and the bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent.

According to Edwards, the North Carolina of his youth resembled Chechnya today -- "I had to fight to survive. I mean really. Literally." Huckabee, a compound of Uriah Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his humble background: "In my family, 'summer' was never a verb." Nixon, who maundered about his parents' privations and wife's cloth coat, followed Lyndon Johnson, another miscast president whose festering resentments and status anxieties colored his conduct of office. Here we go again?

Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964, when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired in 1966. Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?

Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world market sets the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price is evidence of -- surging demand in India and China? unrest in Nigeria's oil fields? No, "corporate greed." That is Edwards' explanation of every unpleasantness. Mitt Romney's versatility of conviction, although it repelled Iowans, has been a modest makeover compared to Edwards' personality transplant. The sunny Southerner of 2004 has become the angry paladin of the suffering multitudes, to whom he shouts: "Treat these people the way they treat you!" Presumably he means treat "the rich" badly -- an odious exhortation to one portion of Americans, regarding another.

Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them, and who therefore think opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.

The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there.

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 01/06/2008 9:51:24 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.”

Huck’s simply mopping up the job Bush began.


2 posted on 01/06/2008 9:58:46 AM PST by KantianBurke ("If you like President George W. Bush, you'll love Mike Huckabee,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The GOP is composed of multiple factions, each with its own priorities. Unforntunately this election cycle, too many members of the various factions in our coalition are seeking their own faction’s ideal candidate, without regard to the opinions of other factions. The only result of such an attitude will be the destruction of the coalition that is the GOP.

We must unite behind a candidate that is at least acceptable to all the major factions, and who also has a reasonable chance to run an effective, winning campaign in the general election.


3 posted on 01/06/2008 10:00:18 AM PST by sourcery (The Branch Algorian cult believes in human sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
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.
4 posted on 01/06/2008 10:04:25 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money.

Should be bumped, pinged and repeated frequently.

Government regulation inevitably makes capitalism less free market and more cronyish. As such, it is by definition is in the interest of large established businesses as compared to small upstarts.

5 posted on 01/06/2008 10:07:09 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Edwards...says a $100-a-barrel price is evidence of... "corporate greed."

He's right! Without "corporate greed," oil would never have been discovered and brought to the market. No oil, therefore no high prices. Problem solved.

6 posted on 01/06/2008 10:07:56 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Edwards, the North Carolina of his youth resembled Chechnya today -- "I had to fight to survive. I mean really. Literally."

Maybe he was picked on because he looked effeminate?

7 posted on 01/06/2008 10:10:14 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

As a firm member of both “groups” I resent the notion that Reagan conservatism was held together by some unsteady alliance between different thinking people. It’s a crock, and the Huckster is nothing more than a flash in the pan. He’ll be yesterday’s news in a few weeks.


8 posted on 01/06/2008 10:11:34 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of all the politics in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
Aside from Mr. Huckabee, there is not one pro-life candidate running for President right now.

Balderdash. Hunter and Thompson are pro-life.

9 posted on 01/06/2008 10:11:44 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?

I don't like Huckabee, but it's hysterical to see the GOP establishment start mouthing the same impieties of the Left, who said the same thing about Dubya.

10 posted on 01/06/2008 10:14:48 AM PST by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
This paragraph, I agree with.

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.

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.

11 posted on 01/06/2008 10:15:59 AM PST by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Reagan embodied all the strains of conservatism: the small-government one, the religious/social one, and the defense-hawk one. The whole spectrum has moved to the left since then, and many social conservatives (esp. Huck fans) are probably former independents and Democrats who could no longer stomach the extremism of a party which now condones atrocities like partial-birth abortion and gay marriage.


12 posted on 01/06/2008 10:16:51 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
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)

13 posted on 01/06/2008 10:17:50 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
...defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- ... "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder."

Because, all the mothers in the country had to leave their kids in daycare and go to work.

That makes families feel poor.

14 posted on 01/06/2008 10:18:25 AM PST by donna ("We can create Kingdom on earth" - Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

True about Hunter, but is he even still running? Thompson opposes abortion, but believes based on federalism that a state should be able to provide medical licenses to those who kill unborn babies if they want. Still, he is better than any of the Rudy McRomney candidates.


15 posted on 01/06/2008 10:19:19 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

I disagree with this completely. Huckabee and Obama are the left and really left versions of the same phenomenon. They both are great speakers who seem to actually answer questions rather than regurgitate focus group pablum. They seem fresh and that they would actually shake things up.

Forget the substance. America has decided to try something really new this year. If you sound fresh and new, it almost doesn't matter what you say. The R's better figure this out. Stick a fork in Romney and Clinton for the general election. They're the most focus-grouped candidates in the whole bunch.

16 posted on 01/06/2008 10:22:23 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; sourcery
Unforntunately this election cycle, too many members of the various factions in our coalition are seeking their own faction’s ideal candidate, without regard to the opinions of other factions.

What I STILL don't understand is how does a meatball like Rudy become the "national security" candidate, when his foreign policy skills have been limited to ethnic festivals? Much as I have problems with Senator Queeg, he at least has experience and knowledge in that area. Plus, Rudy's advisors are the same West End Avenue Commentary Magazine Mafia that got us into the (latest chapter of) "making the world safe for Democracy" crusade to begin with.

Dump the Neocons on foreign policy and keep the snake handlers at bay.

17 posted on 01/06/2008 10:23:32 AM PST by Clemenza (Ronald Reagan was a "Free Traitor", Like Me ;-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
However Thompson and McCain are pro life.

McCain, like Romney, is lying about it for political expediency. In 2000, he said that he does not want Roe v. Wade. He also said that it is ultimately the woman's "choice".

Thompson is pretty good on the issue, but would not support a federal ban on abortion due to his belief in federalism. Still, he'd appoint judges that overturn Roe v. Wade, and that is far more than you can say about McCain, Romney, or Giuliani.

The one thing people did not notice, but the voters in Iowa did notice, is that Mike Huckabee stood up for the sanctity of life at every campaign event. He is the only one who did that. That is why he won Iowa.
18 posted on 01/06/2008 10:24:30 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
CORRECTION: McCain said in 2000 that he does not want Roe v. Wade overturned.
19 posted on 01/06/2008 10:25:15 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964, when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination.

Strawman argument.

It's pretty obvious that a new GOP "establishment" has developed since then, and that it really, really dislikes Huckabee.

20 posted on 01/06/2008 10:26:38 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians

As an evangelical christian who already has a good pastor in the pulpit and does not need or want one in the whitehouse, I agressively repudiate Huckabee and his social justice leanings.

21 posted on 01/06/2008 10:29:53 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?

I don't like Huckabee, but it's hysterical to see the GOP establishment start mouthing the same impieties of the Left, who said the same thing about Dubya.

I wonder what George Will really thought of President Reagan.

Excerpt:
Believing that his life was saved by divine intervention after the nearly fatal assassination attempt, Reagan wrote: ‘I’ve always believe that we were, each of us, put here for a reason, that there is a … divine plan for all of us. I know now that whatever days are left to me belong to Him [God].’"

22 posted on 01/06/2008 10:32:51 AM PST by donna ("We can create Kingdom on earth" - Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Every candidate tears the fusion. That’s the problem some of us have been pointing out for months now. I find Huckabee more acceptable than most of the others. I guess it all depends on how many other Republican voters agree. Looks to me like quite a few of them do.


23 posted on 01/06/2008 10:38:47 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy

Yes, Hunter is still running, or maybe walking is a better term. I saw a picture of him walking alone down a snowy street in NH. To see this fine man dismissed by the Party insiders and the media makes me feeling like either crying or snarling in rage. Utterly tragic for the whole country. In a way, it was appropriate the he wasn’t in the debate. None of the other candidates deserve to be on the same stage with this 24K gold conservative patriot.


24 posted on 01/06/2008 10:39:17 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
Sorry, that is easy for him to do. All of them really. It depends on who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.

All that matters.

If the Demonrats win. Roe will never be overturned in any foreseeable future.

So many people have been turned off and disgusted by the “who’s really gonna go to heaven” battle in this party that folks have chopped their noses off to spite their faces. They have literally helped Obama and have hurt the pro life cause. Maybe they didn’t mean to, but unfortunately they have. I say “thanks a lot folks” you forgot to keep a keen eye on the ball and realize none of what we want can be decreed by the POTUS.

25 posted on 01/06/2008 10:41:16 AM PST by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
McCain, like Romney, is lying about it for political expediency. In 2000, he said that he does not want Roe v. Wade. He also said that it is ultimately the woman's "choice".

Not really. If you go back and look at his record, McCain actually has a pretty solid pro-life, socially conservative record. Not as solid as Fred's, but a lot better than what we could expect from Romney or Rudy.

26 posted on 01/06/2008 10:41:29 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Head and proud of it! Fear the Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Hunter is a fantastic conservative leader. And that is why the “other faction” undermined his campaign. They want to force us into to Rudy McRomney.


27 posted on 01/06/2008 10:43:07 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

It IS a shame. Hunter is a good man, and he’s being totally dissed by the party and the MSM. They’re trying to do the same to Fred, but at least Fred has the visibility that comes with being an actor on a popular TV show, and being a Senator for 8 years. Hunter was a Rep. for a largely ignored district in CA and little known outside his own district and the state GOP, and hence, doesn’t even have those benefits.


28 posted on 01/06/2008 10:44:31 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Head and proud of it! Fear the Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
During the 2000 campaign, McCain said, "I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to illegal and dangerous operations."
29 posted on 01/06/2008 10:44:42 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Not a big fan of George Will - for one, he’s boring, just like the game of baseball he always shills for - but as a fundamental Baptist, I am certainly no fan of Huckabee, either. Hick is a socialist. He’s pro-life, but so what? As President, Huck would work for economic policies which largely drive the abortion industry engine (welfare —> illegitimacy —> abortion mills), so even his pro-life stance is negated by his non-pro-life causing economics. Fredhas the pro-life credentials, without the Huck’s unfortunate socialism.


30 posted on 01/06/2008 10:47:38 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Head and proud of it! Fear the Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
Okay, here's your homework assignment for the day. Go back through the Senate archives and look and see what McQueeg's actual voting record is.
31 posted on 01/06/2008 10:49:13 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Head and proud of it! Fear the Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
It depends on who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. All that matters.

Very true. And that is why I'd take Thompson over any of them, including Huckabee. We can be almost certain that we won't get justices on the Supreme Court who will uphold the Constitution and repeal Roe v. Wade from either McCain, Romney, or Giuliani. Maybe Romney, possibly. But definitely not McCain or Giuliani.
32 posted on 01/06/2008 10:49:51 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I’ll concede your point. But John McCain is not running for Senate, he’s running for President. And the President nominates justices on the Supreme Court. A President who does not want Roe v. Wade overturned is not going to be nominating the likes of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.


33 posted on 01/06/2008 10:51:58 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Hunter was a Rep. for a largely ignored district in CA and little known outside his own district and the state GOP

"Obscure district?" All congressional districts have the same population, and San Diego is a large metropolitan area. Anyway, Hunter is not some obscure back-bencher. He got the fence built along the Calif. border. He was Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and was Reagan's point man in getting Congress to pass antimissile defense and IRBM deployment in Europe. Most of the candidates are completely unqualified on national defense issues. Only McCain even comes close to Hunter.

34 posted on 01/06/2008 10:59:59 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy

Actually, that IS a good point. Mind you, I’m not a McQueeg supporter anywise, so I shan’t be voting for him anywise....


35 posted on 01/06/2008 11:00:54 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Head and proud of it! Fear the Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Under the doctrine that conservatives call “fusion,” each faction has respected the other’s agenda.


Sorry, but if the articles reasoning is based on this lie, then it’s not worth reading.

The evangelicals were getting used, and occasionally thrown a bone. Then the Reps decided they would just go ahead and cram a Guiliani or a Romney down the social cons throats. The truth is it was the corporate conservatives who betrayed the “fusion”, and are now paying the price.


36 posted on 01/06/2008 11:01:23 AM PST by Dreagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
"Obscure district?" All congressional districts have the same population, and San Diego is a large metropolitan area.

That's great.....but, without looking it up, can you tell me who the repsentative(s) for Kansas City is(are)? How about Tucson? How about Columbus, OH? How about Louisville?

Anyway, Hunter is not some obscure back-bencher. He got the fence built along the Calif. border. He was Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and was Reagan's point man in getting Congress to pass antimissile defense and IRBM deployment in Europe. Most of the candidates are completely unqualified on national defense issues. Only McCain even comes close to Hunter.

I didn't say he hadn't done anything while in the House, just that he is largely unknown outside his district - regardless of what he's done. That's why, tautologically enough, most people out there who aren't FReepers have no idea who he even is.

37 posted on 01/06/2008 11:04:16 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Head and proud of it! Fear the Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy
As far as Roe vs Wade goes, McCain didn't vote on it in 1999

Vote Smart

Interest group ratings

38 posted on 01/06/2008 11:04:29 AM PST by Kaslin (Peace is the aftermath of victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
The evangelicals were getting used, and occasionally thrown a bone. Then the Reps decided they would just go ahead and cram a Guiliani or a Romney down the social cons throats. The truth is it was the corporate conservatives who betrayed the “fusion”, and are now paying the price.

I'd have to agree. For all the whining and complaining from some quarters (even here on FR) about Huckabee and his Evangelical, social conservatism, the fact remains that it is the country-club/corporate/FisCon types who have been most active this cycle in jamming their views and their candidates (Romney, and to a certain degree Giuliani) down everybody else's throats.

39 posted on 01/06/2008 11:06:49 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Head and proud of it! Fear the Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy

Sounds reasonable to me.


40 posted on 01/06/2008 11:10:25 AM PST by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

“Balderdash. Hunter and Thompson are pro-life.”

I don’t know enough about Hunter to comment. However, I will respectfully say this about Fred Thompson. Because of his federalist approach and beliefs, Thompson is essentially “pro-choice.” He thinks that states should decide the question. Which from a purely pragmatic point of view is the only way right now to eliminate most of abortions by letting states decide. But Thompson is consistent in his federalism. HE TRULY THINKS IT IS A STATES DECISION. This ultimately has the effect of making him pro-choice, because he would do nothing to end abortion in states that “chose” to keep it. That is NOT PRO-LIFE. Organizations like NRTL have sold out in that regard by supporting Fred. Fred is against ammending the constitution to end abortion in all 50 states.

The same is true concerning the homosexual agenda. I heard Thompson say with his own mouth that if a state wants to have homosexual marriage it is their business and not his; even if he disagrees.

That is the drawback of Federalism. While on many, many issues I agree that the states or lower is the best place to address the issue. However, when we talk about matters of fundamental significance to the general being of a nation - like the right to life, the sanctitity of hetereosexual marriage...it really needs to be decided at a national level.

I only embrace federalism as a stop-gap measure to limit abortion, but it is not the best solution.


41 posted on 01/06/2008 11:12:37 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
The evangelicals were getting used, and occasionally thrown a bone. Then the Reps decided they would just go ahead and cram a Guiliani or a Romney down the social cons throats. The truth is it was the corporate conservatives who betrayed the “fusion”, and are now paying the price.

Exactly. Except we'll all pay the price.

42 posted on 01/06/2008 11:15:03 AM PST by absalom01 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
" The truth is it was the corporate conservatives who betrayed the 'fusion', and are now paying the price."

Since most of the corporate "conservatives" have been sending their contributions to the Democrats since way before the primary season actually kicked into gear, and have steadfastly refused to give the time of day to any conservative, what do you suppose that portends for the future of the Republican party and who do you think is actually "paying the price?"

43 posted on 01/06/2008 11:16:52 AM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
He has recently decided that he won't be called gay anymore, if only he can shout "murder all the capitalists! off with their heads!" loud and often enough.
44 posted on 01/06/2008 11:18:13 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
America definitely needs him, desperately. But every day it is looking more and more like America doesn’t deserve him. The media and all those who ignore and prevent his message from being heard are a clear indication of that. We who know this may have let our country hit bottom before these people wake up and save it.
45 posted on 01/06/2008 11:19:04 AM PST by gidget7 ( Vote for the Arsenal of Democracy, because America RUNS on Duncan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Reading all the excellent comments here I’m thinking that of all the Republicans I think the only who will stand up to the democrats is Thompson. How many times have we wanted Bush to just put his foot down, talk to the American people and be honest about what the democrats were/are doing?

Huckabee will be similar to Bush and strive to work with them, “can’t we all just get along” behavior.

We know McCain will have one foot in their camp.

Mitt will try to compromise with them also, try to gain consensus.

I’m not sure what Hunter would do.

I’m dismissing Ron Paul altogether.

I believe Fred Thompson will call a spade a spade as he has shown in interviews. I would love to see him at the press conferences with the yahoo msm.


46 posted on 01/06/2008 11:24:20 AM PST by snippy_about_it (Fall in --> The FReeper Foxhole. America's History. America's Soul. WWPD (what would Patton do))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

I too am a member of both groups and I resent the suggestion that they are mutually exclusive or that following Madisonian principles is somehow conflicts with Christianity. ON the contrary, they are complimentary.


47 posted on 01/06/2008 11:26:44 AM PST by DivaDelMar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
...Huckabee 1 5 5

Love your table. I wonder if you meant SC=5, NC=5, FC=1, rather?

I love you clasifications and as you say "..there is more..." it would really be nice to come up with a comprehensive questionaire in order to find out "what kind of a conservative" one is :) Especially now, that labels are being thrown around all over the place

48 posted on 01/06/2008 11:27:18 AM PST by ElPatriota (Duncan Hunter 08 -- I am proud to support this man for my president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
"groups"

I tend to agree with your analysis. For some reason many "experts" believe that being a strong free-market capitalist and being a good Christian is mutually exclusive. It's not. No true conservative Republican paints a picture of a depression-era nation. Huckabee is basically dismissing the great economy of the past six years. Reagan would have rejected that image and Huckabee too. I don't like Huckabee because is more of a populist than a conservative Republican. A populist is just the flip side of a demagogue.

49 posted on 01/06/2008 11:47:08 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This whole piece while fine, does’t mention at all the job that G. Bush, McCain, Guilani and Romney ARE doing to ‘redefine’ and destry the Conservative Coalition!! Very Unbecoming of the author.


50 posted on 01/06/2008 11:49:33 AM PST by JSDude1 (When a liberal represents the Presidential Nominee for the Republicans; THEY'RE TOAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson