Conservative lock rule being broken

The Hill ^ | January 09, 2008 | David Hill

[mdittmar]

Just when you think you know how the game is played, someone always changes the rules. This year’s Republican primary season seems ready to challenge one of the oldest and most reliable rules of Republican primaries, the one that says that the most conservative candidate usually wins.

After I was taught this rule by some wise senior consultants, for years I sought out exceptions in order to prove that it couldn’t be that simple. Surely the factors determining the outcome of a primary would be more complex than mere ideology of the contestants, I reasoned. But after several decades of active skepticism I am convinced that this rule is pretty much immutable, and at least as accurate as the typical TV news weathercast.

The best I have been able to do in refining the rule is add a slight modification of the principle. I now articulate the rule like this: “The most right-leaning legitimate conservative usually wins.” This slight reformulation adds a necessary hedge to the proposition, diminishing the prospects of “illegitimate” candidates.

There are at least two categories of candidates that merit the illegitimate label. Right-wing fringe candidates and nut-jobs, no matter how conservative, don’t get the guaranteed win. This explains how a Pat Buchanan could never succeed in his presidential bids against clearly more moderate opponents. Buchanan went outside the boundaries of legitimate conservative orthodoxy.

The second type of illegitimate contender is one who simply doesn’t raise enough money to have the capacity to adequately tell enough voters his story. Some may feel it’s a sad state of affairs when an otherwise solid conservative candidate is deemed illegitimate simply because he cannot raise enough money to tell his story, but that’s the way it is. The ability to raise money is one crucial element of demonstrating legitimacy. For example, in the current field, Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.) is undeniably a solid conservative whose views are mostly in line with conservative orthodoxy. But because he cannot raise sufficient funds to compete, he trails even more oddball candidates like Rep. Ron Paul (Texas).

So how is the rule working this time? Is the most conservative legitimate candidate winning? I don’t think so. Going by everything I know, Fred Thompson is undeniably the most consistent conservative in the field. And while he has shown some progress lately, finishing third in Iowa’s caucuses, his overall prognosis, judging from polls, is not encouraging.

Why isn’t the conservative stalwart performing better? Some would blame Thompson’s reserved style of campaigning, I don’t think this is a valid criticism. Thompson has campaigned at least as hard as some of the Republicans polling ahead of him. I believe that he’s campaigned long and hard enough that if you asked Republican primary voters to say whose views are most conservative of the front-runners — Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain or Thompson — 70 percent or more would say Thompson. Really, his only competition for the conservative mantle is Romney, and the former Massachusetts governor gets criticized often for flip-flops on conservative litmus-test issues.

There may be idiosyncratic explanations for why the rule isn’t working in the current presidential primary cycle. For example, many conservative Republicans may so admire John McCain’s well-documented service to the nation that they overlook his more moderate positions on a variety of issues. Other conservatives may be so focused on having a president who will get harsh with militant Islamic terrorists that they are persuaded by Giuliani’s tough-guy image.

The more ominous explanation, at least for conservatism, is that party members have changed.

Republicans, as a whole, are not as conservative as they once were. Research results I am seeing suggest to me that this is key to why the rules are changing. Conservatives no longer benefit from the domination they once enjoyed.

[rightwingextremist1776]

Does the Chinese calender have a year of the RINO? ‘Cause if they do, then this must be it....

[rightwingextremist1776]

Does the Chinese calender have a year of the RINO? ‘Cause if they do, then this must be it....

[rightwingextremist1776]

Dang double click...got to replace this mouse......

[dforest]

No, it should be posted twice! LOL

[Man50D]

Fred Thompson is undeniably the most consistent conservative in the field....

Huh? David Hill needs to do a little more research.

In 1997 Fred Thompson voted to revoke China’s Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status (S.Amdt. 890 to S. 955), then turned around in 1999 – after even more Chinese malfeasance was uncovered, some by Mr. Thompson himself – and voted in favor of MFN (S.J.Res. 27). Then, during the 2000 debate to give Bill Clinton his coveted Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for the chicoms, Fred teamed with Robert Toricelli to put in a poison pill amendment (S.Amdt 4132 to HR 4444), tying trade to a series of weapons non proliferation standards. Despite the Jesse Helms-like posture and the subsequent failure of his amendment, Fred ended up voting for PNTR, amendment free, handing Clinton a huge victory at the expense of our national security.

He voted to grant amnesty to close to one million illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997 by giving legal status for those who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children.

He voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664 that was in favor of a chain migration system that has been the primary reason for annual immigration levels snowballing from less than 300,000 in 1965 to around a million. Sen. Thompson supported provisions that allow immigrants to send for their adult relatives. Then each of those relatives can send for their and their spouse’s adult relatives, creating a never-ending and ever-growing chain. The bi-partisan Barbara Jordan Commission recommended doing away with the adult relative categories (begun only in the 1950s) in order to lessen wage depression among lower-paid American workers.

Before the Senate passed the H-1B doubling bill (S.1723), Sen. Thompson had an opportunity to vote for a measure requiring U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Sen. Thompson voted against that, joining those who said the requirement would give government too much authority over corporations’ right to hire whomever they please from whatever country.

Thompson supported Roe vs. Wade in the 90’s. Thompson said he supports the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Source: the Memphis Commercial Appeal on July 29, 1993 page B1.

In an October 21, 1994 article, The Washington Post reported that “both” Thompson and his Democratic opponent in the 1994 Senate race, then-Rep. Jim Cooper, “believe in legal abortion.”

Thompson spoke on the Senate floor on April 23, 2002 in support legislation that stated global warming was due to human intervention. Per Title X:

SEC. 1001. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON GLOBAL WARMING.

(a) FINDINGS. The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Evidence continues to build that increases in atmospheric concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate change.

[bpjam]

If Fred had $100M to spend like Obama, my guess is that somehow he would be the ‘miracle’ candidate and the GOP grassroots wouldn’t be so morose over the choices. But since his campaign isn’t apparent to most in the media, it will be a surprise when he comes up at or near the top of any states vote results.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

George Bush with his "compassionate conservatism" has tried for 8 years to craft a bigger tent for the Republican Party to gather under.

This is especially true of his attempts to pander to Hispanics with his illegal alien amnesty program.

George may have succeeded to some extent, thus adding RINO's to the party.

Also, remember in the last election cycle, soccer moms were all the rage. Soccer moms are not traditional conservatives. They are for anything and everything the government can do to protect "the chilrin" they transport around in their minivans and emasculated SUVs.

[Always Right]

Ironically, I am pretty sure 2008 is the year of the Rat....

[sourcery]

Basic References:

• Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere (blog post by author about paper)
• Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere (AAAS PDF of full paper--requires subscription)
• Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
• The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died
• Hostages to a hoax
• Water Experts Find Earth’s Warming, Rainfall Linked to Sun (PDF)
• Global Warming and Solar Radiation
• Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
• The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change (PDF)
• Up against the warming zealots
• When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming
• Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
• Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
• Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
• Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts
• Geophysical, archeological and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change (PDF)
• Gamma rays and climate (PDF)
• Temperature vs. Cosmic Ray Flux
• Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (PDF)
• Proof on Ice: Southern Greenland Was Once Green; Earth Warmer
• Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
• The Past and Future of Climate (PDF)
• Global warming is not a crisis
• The Great Global Warming Swindle
• IceCap

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):

• Science, not politics
• Statistics needed
• The original denier: into the cold
• End the chill
• They call this a consensus?
• The limits of predictability
• Unsettled science
• Models trump measurements
• The ice-core man
• The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science
• Polar scientists on thin ice
• The sun moves climate change
• Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
• Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
• Read the sunspots
• Forget warming - beware the new ice age
• Little Ice Age is still with us
• Fighting climate 'fluff'

Other References:

• An Unrepentant Prognosticator
• Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
• Global warming 'is good and is not our fault'
• The Global Warming Myth
• Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
• Strong Evidence Points to Earth's Proximity to Sun as Ice Age Trigger
• THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!
• Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'
• IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore’s View of Global Warming Consensus
• Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence
• CO2 Science
• On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation
• Does Man really affect Weather and Climate? Are the Interactions really understood?
• The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - explained stepwise
• Global Warming and Climate Forcing by Recent Albedo Changes on Mars
• Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
• The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
• New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual
• Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
• Global Warming as a Religion
• I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (By David Evans)
• Global Warming: it's not caused by greenhouse gases says academic
• Rising Surface Temperatures Drive Back Winter Ice In Barents Sea, Researchers Findx
• Still Waiting for Greenhouse
• GREENIE WATCH
• Why Global Warming Would be Good for You
• Global Warming Primer (PDF)
• Global Warming: An Official Pseudoscience
• Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
• Fiddler On The Roof
• Debating Global Warming
• Climate Resistance

---

Antarctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004:

---

This map (left) shows key areas of Antarctica, including the vast East Antarctic ice sheet. The image on the right shows which areas of the continent's ice are thickening (coloured yellow and red) and thinning (coloured blue). © (Left)British Antarctic Survey, (Right)Science

---

From the European Space Agency: ERS altimeter survey shows growth of Greenland Ice Sheet interior:

Greenland ice-sheet elevation change in cm/year (see colour scale) derived from 11 years of ERS-1/ERS-2 satellite altimeter data, 1992-2003, excluding some ice-sheet marginal areas (white). +5.4 cm/year, or ~5 cm/year when corrected for bedrock uplift.

---

---

[penowa]

"Republicans, as a whole, are not as conservative as they once were."

No kidding... Time to recognize IF you are a conservative, as I am, that the Republican party has left you.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

Ronald Reagan wasn’t a great conservative in reality (just look at his record), he was just a great communicator of conservative principles. The problem is unless the Federal government collapse because of a massive economic or military calamity, the idea of conservative principles becoming practical reality is a fairy tale. Government is just too big and unsustainable if those principles were really applied. Sorry folks, I deal in reality, not idealistic fantasy land.

[spunkets]

"Ironically, I am pretty sure 2008 is the year of the Rat....

Yep. That's what the place mat said.

[festus]

LOL.............

Year of the rat.............

[Kevmo]

“Republicans, as a whole, are not as conservative as they once were.”
No kidding... Time to recognize IF you are a conservative, as I am, that the Republican party has left you.
***So what exactly is that process of recognition, and what are we social conservatives supposed to do about it? I honestly think if someone like James Dobson were simply to endorse Hunter, the Huck supporters would lose their steam, the support would transfer to Hunter, Thompson would continue his decline due to lost evangelical support, Romney would probably see strong declines, and the only real RINOs left to tackle would be McCainiack and Tootyfruityrudy.

[penowa]

I have no idea what any of us should do. The RINOs are reclaiming what used to be Ronald Reagan's party and they don't care that by reading the so-cons and 2nd Amendments voters out they will never win another election. There are many who consider themselves to be conservative who are willing to go along with them in the hope of staying in power, but I think they will be surprised after the '08 election. Without a conservative presidential candidate, we just don't have a dog in the fight. I know how pessimistic this sounds, but I can't be anything else looking at the cards we've been dealt.

If Duncan is on the ballot by the time PA votes, I will vote for him. If not, I will skip the primary and the general and change my registration to IND.

[Kevmo]

The RINOs are reclaiming what used to be Ronald Reagan’s party
***Not only that, but they have a fierce faction right here on free republic.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Wow. Someone FINALLY found something to actually hit Fred with. LOL