Who won't you vote for?
By Staunch_Libertarian Posted in 2008 — Comments (132) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is apparently the central question facing the Republican primary voter. Who won't you vote for? A couple of months ago at the height of Rudy's poll numbers there was a revolt seen on many conservative sites where evangelicals claimed they wouldn't vote for him. Before that, if you can remember that far back, John McCain was the assumed frontrunner and many said they wouldn't vote for him. If you have a good memory you might also remember when Fred Thompson was going to be the savior before he died (Fred Thompson may or may not be actually dead). Now we have the Huckster. Oh joy.
Looking back at the recent past, this is the worst thing to ever happen to Huckabee. Now this splintered coalition we call a party is going to see which sects won't vote for him.
The most amusing thing about all this is the various positions conservatives have made. Many Republicans, both SoCons, FiCons, and DefCons, bashed McCain on various issues and said they wouldn't vote for him no matter what. Then when that dragon was slain and Rudy appeared SoCons cried mutiny again. At that moment Fi/Def-Cons both said they should fall in line. Of course that tune changed with Huckabee and now SoCons are saying that the rest of us should fall in line with the nominee if it is Huckabee.
First of all, my position is that no one should vote for anyone just because of a label. We are far too old to buy a book for the cover. If Rudy is the nominee and a SoCon doesn't want to vote for them, fine. Same thing if a voter doesn't feel that Huckabee is worth a vote. We don't owe any party our loyalty. We owe ourselves and our principles. Period.
With that said, I won't vote for Mike Huckabee. I disagree with him on everything. I don't like his faux-compassion nonsense. I don't like his social views. I don't like his socialist financial outlook. I can only imagine what Barry Goldwater would say about this self-professed "christian leader" wanting to lead the Republican Party. But I bet it would have something to do with a certain someone's boot landing on another certain someone's rear.
Unlike most, I don't think there is something either party always stands for. That is to say, if you look at history the parties have shifted and changed stances often. Today's Republicans do not agree with Republicans of the past. Parties change. What would Andrew Jackson say about John Kerry in the Democrat Party?
So, for me these primaries represent what the party will be going forward. With Reagan's win in 1980 it began a shift to emphasis on SoCon voters that is culminating in the Huckabee run today and the belief by SoCons that they run the party. That may be so, but I don't have to enable that take-over. Voting for George W. Bush (I was for McCain), and the compassionate conservative model has directly lead to the kind of run Huckabee has. How the votes go in primaries directly leads to the new definitions and augmentation of the party. If Republicans want to nominate a tax-raising, border-opening, socialist then that is their right, but don't expect me to be that kind of Republican. At that point the party left me, not the other way around.
And I'm not calling for anyone else to feel the same way. I'm just saying these primary votes do have consequences. They do define the party going forward. I fully understand a SoCon that believes nominating a pro-choice Rudy would move the party in ways that would make the SoCon no longer a Republican.
The real call would be for someone we could all get behind. Apparently McCain is out...for reasons beyond my understanding. Fred Thompson died (unconfirmed). Rudy is canceled out by SoCons. Huckabee is out by FiCons. Romney is out with a great deal of SoCons.
It seems to me that there is no compromise candidate. This is a potentially cataclysmic campaign for the Republican Party as we have known it since the Reagan era. There is no one to bridge the SoCon-FiCon gap anymore. And if no one can do it then there's a hard rain gonna fall.
He's running for reasons not yet disclosed.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Huckabee would be very difficult, but I'd vote for him over a Dem.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Huckabee-I just would never do it. I don't know what the difference is b/w him and a Dem.
Romney-I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I can think of two Democrats running right now whom I could see myself voting for before Huck (ditto Ron Paul).
Thankfully for me, neither Biden nor Richardson are going to get the nomination so I really don't have to think about it all that much.
Guess that makes me a RiNO too, eh?
Caveat: Massachusetts voter - won't matter either way.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I've grown apart from Rudy. While I admire his leadership and courage in NYC (even before 9/11), I just can't stomach the thought of voting for someone who agrees with Hillary on pretty much everything except for Iraq.
Romney/Barbour 2008
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
It would be third party for me.
Buy stock in abortion providers.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
What about those that...you know...actually voted for her? Even if Hillary is the nominee, which it looks like she won't be.
Anyway, it is a red herring to claim those that refuse to vote for a given candidate because of their principles is to blame for the victory of another candidate.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Tell that to AlGore. Or GHWB.
Obama will do well in the first three or four states and then get blown away on Super Tuesday.
Depending on the margins, staying home or voting third party if Rudy is the nominee will probably give the election to Hillary. I don't think the same thing can be said of Bubba Jr. He'll get blown out so badly the only thing that will make a difference is nuclear winter.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
1. Al Gore lost his home state. If he wins his home state of Tenn. then he wins without Florida. Unless you claim Nader took votes away in Tenn. then Gore lost on his own.
2. Perot voters were hard to gague and Bush 1 lost them anyway. It isn't clear that Republican voters that picked Perot would've voted at all without him. He also took many independents that possibly would've stayed home. Bush 1 messed himself up in the end.
3. On Hillary, if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire to Obama then it is real hard to conceive of her winning the nomination. Obama has enough money to run and if he has the momentum...I think he will be the Dem nominee.
Regardless, it isn't my responsibility to vote for a socialist Republican to just make sure a Democrat socialist isn't elected.
In the same vein, it isn't the responsibility of a SoCon to vote for a pro-choice Republican to stop a pro-choice Democrat.
You may not see it the same way as others, but for me voting for Huckabee is like voting for a Democrat. For others voting for Rudy is like voting for Bill Clinton with more skeletons in the closet.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
We've got to keep the White Witch in mind during times of dissension.
Romney/Barbour 2008
You run a pro-abortion candidate in the GOP field and this is what you get. Rudy would not be any better on abortion than Hillary. Though he claims he will appoint justices and COA judges that are strict constructionists, he also claims that a strict constructionist would observe Stare Decisis and uphold Roe. No dice.
It's the rinos keeping Rudy in the race that are giving the race to Hillary by pooping on the core of this party. I'll take Hillary over the return of the GOP to Rockefeller/Northeastern liberal politics anyday.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I have to admit I'm almost fired up for a Rudy/Huckabee match-up. I hope Rudy trounces the fellow.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Huckabee is that disturbing to me, heh.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I'd have to vote on any empty stomach, if at all, for that one.
That would be a seriously depressing ticket.
So that excludes Ron Paul.
Any more you want to add? :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
There seems to be a split on the whole flip-flopping thing. Some think he should be trusted others think he is lying to get elected.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I agree that one could go there (lying), but after meeting the guy, I don't see it. I believe that Mitt would dance with the one's that bought him. I'll take him at his word. The problem with some of the candidates we have is that they don't dance to the music that's playing. Be it abortion, spending, border control, and GWOT.
I don't know of any major groups ready to bolt over him the way there are people ready to bolt over Giuliani and abortion, Huckabee and the economy, or McCain and illegal immigration.
Romney would qualify for you.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Are you asking us to tell who we won't vote for in the GENERAL election, or in the PRIMARIES? Far, far different questions. I'll just answer both.
(1) I would vote for ANY of the GOP candidates (including HWMNBN and John McCain) over ANY Democrat. I will not stay home, and I will campaign actively in my city for the Republican.
(2) In the primary, I am voting for Fred, period. Nothing will be decided before the Texas primary, and there's no reason to run to somebody else. As for who I would NEVER vote for in the primary -- well, HWMNBN (surrender Iraq), McCain (BCFR, Gang14, amnesty), and Huckabee(big-gov populist, soft on borders & GWOT). In a universe without Fred, I could be happy supporting Romney or Giuliani.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
I meant in the General election. I was trying to discuss the issue of loyalty to a party that nominates someone against your principles. I saw a lot of SoCons saying they couldn't vote for Rudy, and while I like Rudy I do understand their point about a party leaving them behind. Same thing for me in the matter of Huckabee.
I believe primaries have consequences and each one realigns, readjusts, and simply transforms what a party stands for. I couldn't in good conscience vote for a party that had Huckabee as the leader.
That's just me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
So I've answered that for myself. You are saying, I guess, that you'll sit it out if the Huck is the nominee? On some other day, I'd go on an epic tirade about how doing so is in essence a half-vote for corrupt, anti-American socialists.
But today I'm tired.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
It would either be a third party vote for me or none at all.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
"On some other day, I'd go on an epic tirade about how doing so is in essence a half-vote for...socialists."
A vote for Huckabee is a full vote for a socialist.
I'll sit out too if he is the nominee.
I agree. I also understand a SoCon saying a vote for pro-choice Rudy is a full vote for abortion.
We all have principles and have to vote them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I said the same thing the other day and got read the riot act about not doing that to the party. I want to vote for a conservative! Not a pro-choice ficon, nor a tax and spend socon. The way I see it, that leaves me only 2 choices.
I had meant to add something like 'in other words, the Democrats', but I forgot to before hitting [post].....
And your riposte is perfect. Only for me, if pressed, I'll vote for OUR socialist (who might actually nominate Constitution-loving judges) over the America-hating socialists on the Dem side.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
What I mean by that is the idea of socialism is now entrenched in both camps as the way to move forward. We need a bulwark against the idea of socialism. If Republicans nominate Huckabee I think we desperately need some viable Teddy R. type candidate to run third party and attempt to at least provide an alternative to keep capitalism alive in the discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
If the Huckster were to win the GOP nomination, it would be a near-mortal blow for conservatism in America as a political movement. Which is why conservatives will fight like hell for that nomination to NOT happen.
However, if it does happen, the Huck is still (IMHO) VASTLY preferable to Hillary. Vastly. Miles and miles better.
Third party conservative candidate would cede the election because it would obviously split the GOP vote.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Example: Barry Goldwater?
I would almost like to see some real small government, fiscally responsible, conservative run third party and make a good showing in defeat to lay the foundation for taking the party back and uniting us under a winner for 2012 when the Demos are leaving the country in shambles.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Look what Jimmy Carter did in 4 years. Gave away the Panama canal, drove our economy into the ground, let Iran treat our nation like a latrine.
If Hillary becomes President, these things I can come close to guaranteeing:
(1) all four of those aging Constitution-hating SCOTUS justices will retire and be replaced by 4 very young Ruth Bader clones, putting a return to a Constitution-driven government at least 30 years down the road.
(2) Single-payer nationalized health-care will happen, and it will be as easy to get rid of as Social Security.
(3) Taxes, spending, an deficits will spiral to un-thought of heights.
(4) The so-called Fairness Doctrine will be enacted and used to stifle conservative radio. Good luck getting conservatism back on the table in 2012.
(5) Clinton, Inc. If you thought Hugo Chavez was bad.....
So, now way, no moral victory, no 'lose now to gain later' doctrine. 2008 is the battle. There is no other. So fight it in the primaries if you think the Huck is that big a disaster.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
If you look at it, four years of Carter led to 12 consecutive years of a Republican president.
Hillary will run this country down of that there is no doubt, but I believe Huckabee will do the same thing. He will provide amnesty, not secure the borders, spend us into oblivion on entitlement programs, raise taxes, etc.
We need to at least provide some semblance of a capitalist message and if Huck is the nominee what can we do? If we vote for him we lose credibility and we lose the argument for capitalism.
Someone must provide the rationale for free market solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
OK fine. But who owns the Panama Canal today? That would be CHINA. Does that disturb you?
And look at Iran, the Middle East, OPEC, and global terrorism. You can thank 4 years of Jimmy Carter for a fair percentage of the crap that's going on.
It's like you read nothing of what I said. Permanent socialized medicine. 30 more years of left-wing judicial oligarchy. Fairness Doctrine. Clinton Inc, which will make Hugo Chavez look like Mother Teresa. These are significant and irreversible steps that slide us inexorably into socialism.
And you would invite all of that because Huck is a populist.
Sorry, no sale.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
First thing you do is assume that Hillary is going to be the nominee which I think is incredibly flawed. Her numbers are flagging as more people pay attention and it isn't as if the left loves her. She was leading on name recognition and inevitability. And do you think Edwards supporters will switch to Hillary? If Edwards loses Iowa and drops out then look for his support to go to Obama. Same thing with Richardson. Clinton might get Biden's suppport, but that is it. As that race narrows Obama grows. Hillary has to prolong the three-way. Once it gets to a two person race she is done. I don't think she will be the nominee.
Second, you assume if she was the nominee that she could just get whatever she wanted done. Based on what exactly? The party discipline of Democrats? Since when? Her husband didn't get much done without working with our side and neither can Hillary. So I don't think it is as doom and gloom as you predict.
So, Huckabee is still a no-deal with me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
No offense intended, Staunch, but listen to yourself. My assumptions are flawed because I assume Hillary is going to be the nominee(??????), and because I assume as prez she'll get her agenda across(?????????). Dude, those are bankable assumptions.
Listen to me. Hillary will be the nominee. 100% chance of that. It's not a popularity contest, it's a political machine.
Hillary will get what she wants if she becomes President.
Let's see, a Senate that projects to be 55-45, and a House led by the nitwits in the Hoyer-Pelosi-Murtha bunch. OK, where do you see that she ain't gonna get socialized medicine, weekly lynchings of Republicans, the Fairness Doctrine, and at least 3 new ultra-liberal Supreme Court justices who will sit for 30 years?
She will get everything she wants if elected.
So I return to my original, undeniable point. If Republican voters sit on the sideline because our nominee is not a faithful conservative, conservatives will pay a terrible cost, for at least a generation. Period. Hillary is the bull dragon in 'Reign of Fire'.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
IMO we better find someone that we can agree on.
Huckabee better in the short term? Maybe, marginally better. In the same way some parts of the titanic are marginally less under water than others.
In the long term? I'd rather we not spend 16 full years (assuming Huck got two terms) under big government compassionate conservatism, and 8 creeping strongly toward socialism. I'd rather lick our wounds for 4 years, regroup, and hope to comeback as the party of small government we should be.
Change comes through primaries, you are exactly right. There is no reason to coalesce around a single candidate at this point, it would be even better to drag it out through the convention. Vote your principles and stick to your guns. Let the winner be the one to pull the party together after the nomination is done.
...I won't vote for...
the huckster. I can't do it with a clear conscience.
Patience grasshopper. 24 days till... FDT's move to Iowa could pay off big. The Huck surge is going to sink fast. Now is a great time for McCain and Thompson. The Thompson campaign could see the fall of Huckabee approaching and is going to go hard for those voters and the undecideds. Things can change dramatically and will do so over the next 24 days.
I just don't see it happening. Thompson should've been in Iowa from the beginning. It will be hard to come in this late (and it is late) and carry the state.
I also see no reason other than wishful thinking to believe that Mike Huckabee is going anywhere for the time being. His compassionate conservative christian populist message is resonating just as it did for Bush in 2000. Except Mike is more skilled at selling it than Bush.
There is a definitely an opening for a SoCon candidate and Mike has taken that mantle over Romney and Thompson. I don't see any indication that those people will move.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I'm horribly torn, because I really do not like
Huckabee, Guiliani, and Romney. Which one of these
candidates would I not vote for?
Huckabee has shown a depth of ignorance in dealing with issues such as HIV/AIDS, coupled with his burning desire to have the government help me, even if I don't want it, makes him a total non starter (His lack of understanding of even basic scientific knowledge is merely the icing on the cake for me). if I want big government, I'll just vote Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Bloomberg, at least then I can register my displeasure at the Republican party for straying from the small government concept.
Romney? Really I have no clue what he really stands for. and honestly, I don't think he knows either, He'll just keep claiming whatever he needs to claim until he gets elected. and I'm not going to vote for that. I'd vote Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Bloomberg because at least then I'd know what I'm voting for.
Guiliani? this is a close one. He's a little more moderate and matches me a little more closely on social issues. My biggest fear with him is the perception that I have that he'd happily toss any and all of our civil liberties in order to make America a safer place. I could vote for Guiliani, But that's a close thing.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Huckabee is a complete non-starter with me. No way I'll ever vote for him.
Romney-I don't trust him at all. Based on his record I don't know how anyone could.
I do worry about Rudy's take on civil liberties, but I think he is worth a shot.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
You're voting with your emotions too much. Romney never broke a promise that I can see.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
He just changes positions a lot. Maybe it is genuine. Maybe he really was pro-choice and now is pro-life. But if that is true maybe he'll gain another epiphany later? Who can say? Maybe he'll get some epiphanies about how big government can help people once he is in charge of said government. It could happen. Based on his record. He has a history of epiphanies.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
... what else has he had an epiphany on?
PS: Did you see this in your own thread?
the nominee is John McCain.
In the primary I will probably throw my vote away on Duncan Hunter, unless Georgia appears to be a close race between two candidates. In that scenario I will cast my vote to try to stop Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain.
If McCain is the nominee, I will stay home, vote third party, or write in someone else. I will never, ever cast a vote for John McCain. And I can provide a laundry list of his policy and political positions that disqualify him.
And yes, I have thought it through. I would rather Hussein Obama or Hillary be president than McCain.
But my column would be unlikely to endorse Huckabee, unless (perhaps) Edwards were the Democrat nominee. Clinton would run to the Huckster's right on trade, business, taxes, national security and healthcare.
My column is in a small newspaper in NY. It seems unlikely that my endorsement will be avidly sought. Only very unusual circumstances could make NY a close state in the general - or in either primary for that matter.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
If Rudy is the nominee, would NY actually come into play? Or not? Down here in God's country, we hear only what people tell us about the home environs of Her Thighness.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
As much as Rudy would like to argue otherwise, New York is only in play when it doesn't matter (e.g. '80, '84).
If Rudy is the nominee, would NY actually come into play? Or not?
It is possible, but I doubt it. Recall, his base is NYC and its commuter belt, and many millions of the people in that area live in other states. I think it is clear he would do better in NYC than any other GOP candidate. In the context of a generally good year and a very strong turnout for him upstate, that could make it winnable, but only if he was already leading in 6-10 other states that voted Gore and Kerry. He might make the Dems spend money in NY and CT that they would rather be spending in PA and OH. His base - the NYC environs - comprises a bigger proportion of CT and NJ than it does of NY. NJ certainly becomes winnable.
Of course, all these calculations are thrown big time if Bloomberg runs a serious and well-financed campaign. That could split the whole tri-state area into a tightly contested three way. Since I doubt Bloomberg's ability to take many moderate votes in states like FL and OH, it could leave the Dems fighting for their lives in the North East without making compensatory gains elsewhere. However, my guess is that if Giuliani is the GOP candidate, Bloomberg won't run. If Huckabee is the GOP candidate . . . who knows?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Rudy- No Way I'd vote for him. He would destroy the pro-life movement within the Republican party and make the "culture of corruption" charges stick with us well into the next decade
Huckabee-Nothing more than a socialist in Republican clothing. He would damage the party's Ficon branch beyond recognition
McCain-He has compromised with the Democrats and betrayed this party too many times to ever get my vote in the general election
Romney-I would never vote for a candidate that changes his positions so often to suit the attitude of the place he is running in.
Fred-Maybe, but he better run the White House in a more active manner than he runs his campaign.
The above was meant sarcastically; I would vote for any of the Republican candidates above if they got the nomination. I'm not anywhere near perfect. Why should I require that my nominee be perfect?
More along the lines of a pursuit of principle. No one is perfect. I have problems with all the candidates, but some definitely cross the Rubicon.
Huckabee and I don't agree on anything that I can think of. So why should I vote for him? I think he is nothing, but a populist christian. I don't want socialism otherwise I'd be a Democrat.
I disagree with McCain on things, but I would vote for him. Same with Thompson and Rudy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I had said all the way since 2000 that I would never, ever vote for McCain for anything (and I was a year to young to vote in 2000!). However, by comparison, I really can't get that worked up about his failings anymore and would probably vote for him. At least he's right on most things.
I hate Hillary Clinton that much and could not imagine looking at that haggard face for 4 years or that freaky looking husband of hers.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I couldn't take four years of his namby pamby preaching from the Oval Office while petting bunnies and handing out scholarships to illegal immigrants because enforcing the law is just too mean.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I'll have serious reservations about voting for Romney, McCain - well, okay, every Republican running - but when it comes down to it, I could, in good conscience, vote for any Republican except Rudy. Some expect us to all be so scared of Illinois' third Senator that we'll end up voting for him. Don't try us.
I had a discussion with my wife, and without telling her my positions, she flatly said she would not vote for Huckabee. My wife, who is as an independant voter as there is, could not see voting for him. Especially after letting Dumont out.
As for the rest, I could vote for any of them.
I have begun to ask myself a question, is the republican party leaving me. I am social conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law and Order Conservative. And I am a Defense Conservative.
I have come to the conclusion that America can survive Hillary, but the Republican party can not survive Huckabee.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
The party as we know it has been sliding for a while and Huck is the culmination and the consequence of this compassionate conservative big government movement that led to Bush's victory and his subsequent spending spree.
Huckabee would outspend Bush, support Amnesty, and provide the country with no real capitalist choice.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Rudy - It's hard to find something about him that I like. I'm not buying into the "strong leadership during 9/11 BS"
Romney - IMO, he is completely 100% full of it. Can we really believe anything this man says? If he wins the Republican nomination, I forsee plenty more flip-flopping for votes in the general election.
McCain - Cutting pork barrel spending just isn't enough for me.
That is about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
What lies? Unless there's a factual basis for it, your disgust is your problem, not Romney's.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As much as I loathe some of their policies, there really isn't a candidate I wouldn't vote for. I would vote for Giuliani with a great deal of reluctance, if at all.
Romney can still get the SoCon vote if he wins the nomination. He'll do a great deal better than Giuliani would anyway. Huckabee is a fiscal disaster. McCain panders to the wrong people and alienates all the people needs the most. Fred Thompson would be good if he had a clue how to run a campaign.
Romney's really the only guy that can bridge the FiCon-SoCon gap.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Huckabee's rise can be attributed in large part to SoCon doubts about his honesty. He has a litany of quotes and videos to show him being a liberal when he ran in a liberal state and magically finding his conservative principles when he wanted to run in a conservative primary.
I for one don't trust him at all and wouldn't vote for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
The 'recent convert' is simply a phony view of Romney. If you want to know Mitt’s 1994 positions, look at his flyers not just one or two quotes from a single debate:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/166511.aspx
http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf
In 1994, he ran as a mostly-conservative candidate against Ted Kennedy.
Mitt’s 1994 positions:
- pro death penalty
- pro mandatory sentences
- pro welfare reform: require work with welfare, drug testing
- opposing Clinton tax increases
- supporting tougher measures to stop illegal immigration
- support school choice through vouchers
- oppose govt takeover of healthcare, oppose employer mandates, opposed increased taxes to pay for govt healthcare
- support term limits
- oppose taxpayer finance campaigns
- support requiring congress live by laws they pass
- oppose higher taxes on social security recipients
his liberal positions were
- fight discrimination of all kinds
- women’s right to choose
Brody file says:
“The mainstream media likes to run with the flip flop angle. There’s validity to it but let’s also be real here. It’s a sexier story than one that shows how Romney’s been a pretty consistent conservative for awhile. This 1994 campaign flyer is being discussed on blog sites like Iowans for Romney.
Romney has taken a lot of heat for changing his position on abortion. But you have to wonder: Maybe Romney’s been a conservative all along. It’s just that in liberal Massachussets, to get elected, sometimes you have to bend a little more than you want to.”
There has been a lot less ‘conversion’ than assumed. On almost all issues (with the notable exception of abortion/life), Romney has been *consistently* and genuinely on the conservative side all along.
He didn't magically find them, Romney has lived his life with fiscal conservative and family-values principles from the get-go. He is the most genuine, accomplished, high-achieving, high-character individual in the field, and you can trust him to make every honest effort to live up to his campaign promises.
Huckabee has a litany of his own: a video showing that he'd raise any tax that came across his desk, as well as plenty of articles from Arkansas newspapers that showed how awful he was for the conservative movement there.
I don't get the whole "I don't trust Romney" thing. Why not? He campaigned as a moderate and governed as a conservative in the bluest state in the union, balancing the budget 4 years straight without raising taxes. Who can be trusted in this election if Romney can't?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Unlike a few others, the motivation for my vote is who I think my country is better off with as President, not what vote makes me feel good about myself.
If I think the Republican nominee would be worse for America than the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for the Democrat however distasteful that might be (and vice versa). I won't waste my vote on a 3rd party joke or equivalent abstention, except in the case where the election is sure to be a blowout where the 3rd party votes couldn't possibly make a difference. It's extremely unlikely for two bad job applicants to be so equally bad, that there isn't one who's an even worse bet than the other.
Hillary is a crook and RonPaul! is insane. I'd rather have a sane crook as Commander in Chief than a sincere kook.
With Clinton vs. Huckabee, we get a self serving con artist as the next President whoever wins, and I think Huckabee would be a marginally preferable con man.
That preference for Huckabee assumes he is in fact a con man, spewing whatever idiocy he thinks will get enough suckers' votes to win the nomination. If Huckabee really is crazy enough to believe his own rhetoric, then I'd probably have to vote for Hillary.
Aside from Paul and Huckabee, I'd definitely support any Republican nominee over any Democrat among those now running.
Hillary over Huck? The leader of the Democrats over a fairtaxing pro-life Republican? Huckabee may increase spending compared to other Republicans, but will it be worse than Hillary? He might not be very good on immigration, but will it be worse than Hillary? Not bloody likely. With all of Huckabee's shortcomings, he doesn't come close to being comparable to Hillary. As for Ron Paul... at least we know he stands for less government spending. His end goals may be pretty out-there, but his top priorities are cutting wasteful and worthless government spending. Certainly better than the anti-Republican (Hillary).
At least in the general election, I know Hillary would keep 75,000 troops in Iraq for some time. I have no clue what type of judges RP would bring, but for some reason, I'm just don't think it would be the ones I want, which makes him less than equal with she who has two X's and a Y chromosome.
I would vote for Huck in a general with much apprehension. At least I could yell at him if he raises taxes and send spam to the white house about spending. He is my 5th choice in the primary.
Certainly not biologically, and not the way she is campaigning.
When I vote for POTUS in the general I want to cast my vote for the candidate who will best execute the role of the presidency and come closest to representing my political views. If only two candidates have a viable shot then I limit my choices to them. It feels irresponsible to me to think in terms of a protest vote, whether it is trying to punish or control my party or any party. The time for trying to control the party is in the primary, not the general. After that its making the best choice from what is available.
Given that, I generally always find Republicans more suitable than Democrats. But out of the current field of Rs I haven't considered what I would do if Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo were the nominee. It would depend on who the Dem nominee is, but I could conceivably vote Dem in such a case. Not so with any of our front runners. Rudy would be better on abortion than any of the Dems and much better on everything else. I would at least hold out hope that Huckabee would be a little more constrained in his populism than any of the Dems and better on social issues.
And anyway, because they are in the Republican party, they will be more constrainable on these issues. The best way to exercise control is not by dropping out. It is the party which represents the President's primary constituency and exerts pressure on policy. If an interest group drops out of the party, it loses that leverage. If Giuliani is the nominee and the socons stay in, they will push him to the right because he will need support and popularity in order to govern. If it is Huckabee, how is he going to govern successfully if a large segment of the party he is beholden to goes into revolt. Its the ones who are not in the party coalition that are most easily shunted.
There are many obvious examples of this. When Slick Willy got in trouble he scurried to the left. Dubya did an about face on Harriet. Pelosi and Reid have made themselves fools for Markos and Moveon.
"Ideas are bulletproof." Elections come and go with every single election touted as the biggest and most important one in history. People were saying Bush/Gore was the most important. People said Bush/Kerry was the most important. Now people claim 2008 is the most important. I happen to think America is a nation built on ideas not parties therefore it can survive a lot of crap from either ruling party.
Coming from that perspective I don't think that one election trumps principles and ideas. Picking the lesser of two evils isn't really that practical. If you think both are unworthy of your vote it would be better to work towards ideas that will far outlast either given candidate. There is nothing in the world wrong with being pragmatic about your presidential choice, I just happen to believe supporting good ideas is more pragmatic in the long run than sacrificing principles for electoral victory. One need only look at the last eight years to see that electoral victory can end up being hollow when we sacrifice a bit of principle for victory. The spending and scandals led to 06 and a president with no approval rating to speak of. Electoral victory is just far too fleeting to base a vote on it.
I would rather make a point based on principle that can hopefully ring true for elections to come in the free marketplace of ideas than vote for someone I don't agree with for possibly the victory of a guy and his ideas which I don't agree with. With Huckabee it would be trying to help socialism win. I don't see how that serves me or the country at all.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I would agree that 2000 was the "most important election to date". As was 2004. Had Gore won in 2000, God only knows how muddled our response to 911 would have been. Maybe we'd have sent a racially and gender balanced FBI team to chase down aQ. I know we certainly would not have Roberts and Alito. And had Kerry won in 04 we'd be seeing the same murderous aftermath in Iraq that we saw in Vietnam after the Democrats cut off all support for the South.
As much as I dislike and distrust Huckabee, he'll be better than any Democrat.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Every single election just keeps trumping the others in importance ad-infinitum? Maybe so, but I somehow doubt it.
Look where that thinking got us. In my eyes it got us to a Republican Party far removed from one I once cherished. Voting for President Bush allowed compassionate conservatism to ooze into the lexicon of Republican politics. Every time we voted for him and his big spending. We looked the other way while he lost his veto pen while pork was signed into law in the name of electoral pragmatism and compassion.
We are stuck with Huckabee because we sold out small government principles for electoral prudence. Huckabee has a seat at the table because compassionate conservatives were able to win the battle of ideas in the party.
If losing this election means we begin to wean ourselves from this idea of big government compassionate conservatism...then so be it.
I think taking the party back is crucial to future success. If we just become big government populists then what makes us any different than Democrats?
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
because we are under attack. We haven't been successfully attacked in America since the anthrax attacks just after 9/11. but we know our enemies are trying. And we probably have some partially rational enemy sympathizers out there who'd like to attack us, but they don't because they don't want to suffer the retaliatory attack that President Bush would launch. Compare to Clinton's retaliatory attacks after the Cole.
Compare this election to 1944. Dewey, the Republican nominee, wasn't saying that the war against Germany was a mistake. He wasn't calling for a timetable to withdraw American troops from Italy. Nobody made a real ad calling General Eisenhower "General Lies and Power".
I held my nose and voted three times for the Bush's. I will NOT vote for George Huckleberry Bush III.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
“Life is bigger that one election.” Granted.
“2008 is [not] the most important election [ever].” Granted.
“Election[s don’t] trump principles and ideas.” Granted.
“[therefore] picking the lesser of two evils [when voting in the general presidential] isn’t … practical.”
Hmm… granting all the above I don’t see how the conclusion follows. It seems to me you still rely on the original and subsequently repeated argument, which if I understand you correctly can be paraphrased as:
‘By withholding my vote in the general I can cause my party to lose. Any collateral damage – from my point of view – which occurs to the country as a result of my strategy will be outweighed by the following hoped for effect: namely, because my party wants to return to power, my defeating action will teach it that in the future it must reject everyone who does not agree with my ideas.’
I think I have already given you a partial but sufficient indication of why I do not find your original argument/expectation practical. And granting your new propositions – which all appeal to me – doesn’t present me with any logical inconsistencies or reason for practical doubt. Does it?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Maybe. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
It will be interesting to see how the feelings people have expressed in writings like this one actually play out in the general election if someone like Rudy wins the primary.
I think you have to take people's statements that they would not vote for a certain candidate, even if he gets the nod, with a grain of salt. Simply put, you never know exactly how you're going to feel about something like this until its down to the wire, you actually have to make a decision, and there is something on the line.
As much as some people here have great contempt for Rudy/McCain/Romney/Huckabee/Whoever, I highly doubt that most would actual risk handing the election to Obama/HRC/Edwards by supporting a 3rd party candidate who had no chance of winning. Granted this observation is dependent upon who the Democratic candidate is and if there is a viable 3rd party option.
whomever that may be. Another 4 years of a Clinton as president would just be too much to take, almost as bad would be the 20-30 years of whatever judges she would appoint to the Supreme Court.
If we happen to lose to the Democrats, I hope their candidate is Obama. As bad as that would be, he appears to be a better person than Hillary, so hopefully that would mitigate some of the potential damage.
I do not want four years of a Democrat president just to show the country how bad it would be. This last year with the Democrats in control of Congress has shown the country just how bad the Democrats can be, but I am not convinced that their lousy performance will necessarily result in Republican victories in 2008.
In answer to your real question, I would have an extremely difficult time voting for Tom Tancredo (too one-note) or Ron Paul (too crazy). Luckily, neither of them appears to have a chance.
The other candidates all at least offer me some hope that they would agree with me on several issues that I deem important:
Rudy would protect our country from our enemies.
Romney would hopefully fix the fiscal mess that is our government.
McCain would be a strong voice for our troops.
Huckabee would keep the secularists at bay.
Thompson would bark loudly and carry a big stick.
Duncan Hunter would finally get the &#*$ fence built.
They would all give us better judges than the Democrats.
Huck will launch More Compassionate Conservatism part deux. And the conservative movement will cease to exist.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
isn't what Bush gave us.
The liberals were pounding the message that conservatives were a bunch of mean spirited people because they wanted to take away entitlements, give tax breaks to the "richest 1%", etc.
Compassionate conservatism was meant to show that by being fiscally conservative, by lowering taxes, and by moving toward a smaller government, we would produce more charitable giving, better education and healthcare, and a better life through this new type of "compassion".
Compassionate Conservatism is a good thing. We just didn't get much of a chance to see it in action.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I was listing the areas where I agree with them.
Government being compassionate with my taxes is not the proper or even close to the best way to take care of the poor.
"It's not your money Mike, it's the taxpayer's money," Mitt Romney.
I would not vote for any Democrat. If the Republican is utterly odious, then I will try to figure out if there is any third party candidate for whom I can vote and send a message.
Are any of the current R's that odious? (I know; that is really the question.) I am not sure. If Rudy convinces me that he really will appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas, I probably could vote for him. If Huckabee proves to be a lot different than he comes across right now (clueless on judges and suspect at best on finances and defense), maybe. I would have to measure how much damage I really thought Paul or Tancredo would do and whether they might have some value in counteracting Congress.
That said, I will gladly support Mitt or Fred. I dislike McCain's stand on campaign finance, but I would pull the lever for him if he is the nominee. I suspect I would do the same for Rudy, but I would have to hold my nose more. Right now, I would say the chance I would vote for Huck is hovering a bit below 50%. Paul and Tancredo are hovering much lower than that.
It is early; but like (I suspect) a lot of others here, I have never voted for anyone for president other than the GOP nominee, so to have anyone under the 50% line is disconcerting.
but I voted for Ross Perot. I really wanted Bush I to win, but when he decided it wasn't worth fighting for, I voted for Perot to send a message.
Apparently there were quite a few in Utah who felt the same as me since ours was the only state where Clinton came in third that year.
Look at the issues:
He's on the wrong side of the abortion issue.
He's on the wrong side of the Second Amendment.
He made the disastrous decision to place the Emergency Response Center in Building 7 at the WTC *after* the first WTC attack.
He recommended Kerik to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
Giuliani did *nothing* about the NYC "sanctuary city without the name" policy.
I don't trust Rudy to appoint sound conservative judges.
I don't trust Rudy to appoint sound advisors.
I don't trust Rudy on domestic policy.
I don't trust Rudy on foreign policy.
I would not trust Rudy here, there, or anywhere!
Do we really want to nominate a candidate whose personal life can be compared *unfavorably* to that of the Clintons?
Rudy worries me a lot. I'm not quite sure he has reached the status of odious for me, but I understand why he does for others. I do think he is bright. (So is the slimeball Chuck Schumer; I am not saying this is a qualification per se.)
If Rudy really sees how much slack he will get cut on a lot of issues if he appoints the right judges, he might deliver on that promise to appoint Scalias and Thomases. Based on his intelligence and his experience in the Reagan Justice Department, he at least knows what it means to appoint a Scalia or a Thomas. There are some others I am not sure even know what that means.
If he gets the judges right, the abortion issue and the second amendment are helped more than he can hurt them from the White House.
Goodness knows, it might be nothing more than a Pollyanna scenario. I hope our choices are better.
- Huckabee, under any circumstance
- Ron Paul, does he even count
- Guiliani
If Huckabee, or Guiliani are the nominee then I don't believe our party knows who it is anymore.
Either Rudy or Huckabee will rip it apart, but it may be time. The SoCons as a whole are moving to big government spending and if that is the case the split is inevitable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Most socons don't care for big government, its just that abortion trumps everything else for them - they are willing to sacrifice other issues. In this case, they just see Huckabee as the best pro-lifer. Now, I don't agree with that thinking, but the pro-life is the driving force, not big government spending. I know very few socons (and I know a lot) who would be at all supportive of more spending for big government programs.
Nearly all of them, though, swallow their pro-life convictions and cast their lot in with the Democrats (following the leadership of people like Jim Wallis, for example).
I will vote for any Republican over any Democrat, because all the Republicans will defend America much better than any of the Democrats.
I would think about voting for a Democrat if Joe Lieberman is their nominee, but I doubt that will happen.
I also think that all the Republicans are better than the Democrats on judicial activism and family values issues.
I would not vote for Giuliani, unless he was nominated AND I became convinced that he would not harm the pro-life cause. Right now I am not convinced of that.
90% chance I would not vote for Huckabee either - he's pro-life, but that's about it. Again, I could be convinced otherwise, but it would take a lot.
There's lots of time between now and November...and a lot could happen to change my mind one way or the other. That's actually why I've stopped discussing this here and elsewhere - I decided it was unproductive and anything could happen between now and then.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I am a solid Republican voter, but I do not think that I could vote for Mike Huckabee under any circumstances. I also believe that a Obama-Huck or a Hillary-Huck match up almost guarantees that Bloomberg gets in. He would have to be a complete fool not to get in under that scenario. I would likely vote for Bloomberg if Huck is the GOP nominee.
Conservative economics and aggressive foreign policies are the biggest doors in the GOP's big tent, so if Huckabee gets the nod they will be the biggest exits.
I won't vote for a Democrat.
In the primary I won't vote for Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, or McCain. McCain is pretty much where I draw the left/right divide. Anyone as liberal or more liberal than McCain can't get my vote outside of a race against Hillary or whatever socialist the Democrats put up next year.
but I will need to take some valium before going in to the booth for either Huckabee or McCain. I want to be able to go right back home and sleep off the sliminess I will feel at that moment.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
It will be very hard for me to pull the lever for Huck. There's no chance he'd get a SCOTUS nominee through. I've been thinking about that though. A 7-member SCOTUS would still be in our favor based on who's likely to leave.
==== 13 ====
even if it's Huckabee or Romney
"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to boot an infant." - W.C. Fields
Even Giuliani, who thinks Roe was correctly decided, or Huckabee, who believes the same of Lawrence?
I'd happily vote for Rudy, Mitt or Fred.
With indifference, I'd vote for Hunter.
With a desire only to defeat the Democrats, I would vote for John.
It would be better for a Democrat to win this once then to have Huckabee, Paul or Tancredo tarnish the Grand Ole Party of Lincoln.
You'd rather see a socialist Democrat tarnish the whole nation, perhaps irretrievably?
. . . the Republicans would win it back. A bad democrat can do more good for the Republican Party in the long run than a lousy republican.
I'm starting to think this party needs a reality check in the way of Dems running the show for a while. Conservatism is needed on all three legs of the stool. Give me a true conservative, or give me liberal to put on display for failures sake. Didn't we learn anything in 2006? I think people better start understanding that the Republican Party is the conservative party. Conservative fiscally, socially, and militarily. Three legs, short on any one of them, we fall over.
Sure, because when the Republican's finally "won it back" from FDR they repealed the New Deal programs, like Social Security, and when they "won it back" from Johnson they repealed the Great Society programs. I'm sure they'll get right on the repeal of socialized medicine, national ID cards, and whatever other tyrannical things that Hillary enacts.
Not to mention that nobody likes the person who tries to take their candy and toys away.
under any circumstances.
Sorry. But you did ask.
Ron Paul.
I'll have trouble voting for Rudy if it comes to it, but ultimately elections are a choice, and I view it as my patriotic duty to make that choice, even if its an unappealing one. and Rudy will unquestionably be better than any of the Dems who actually have a shot at winning the nomination (and most if not all of those who don't).
It is a shame that we have come to the "who you won't vote for"
brand of politics. Let's see what's at stake. Hillary wants to be Queen and has not one shred of patriotism in her selfish bones. Let's look at the motives of the Republicans.
1. All of them are a little infatuated with themselves, you have to be by definition.
2. What do they want to do? Virtually, everyone is almost identical. Fact is, The country won't stand for a dismissal of abortion just yet. (I personally hope that it becomes socially taboo) The gay issue is really not much difference, every repub. candidate wants one man, one woman union enshrined, even Rudy doesn't want a definition change.
So, the war cry for the republicans is lower taxes, tough on crime, tough on Islamofascism, tough on open borders (even if John wants an amnesty) and so on.
3. What we don't want is Ron Paul
4. Obama is better than the white witch.
5. We need to look out for three things this election. 1. a person who is tough to smear
2. A small spender and a tough on Congress big spend machine
3. A much better PR guy than Bush who seems to not care if people don't understand his ideas, facts and motives.
Get a grip people These guys are our allies, the only problem
right now is to pick the one that will win. If your guy loses and that's really possible in a 5 way race, just remember that not all your allies are perfect. France in WWII was with us and against us at the same time, but we still liberated the place.
I was working for a guy who's pretty Right minded like myself, who seemed to be serious, yet facetious in saying that he's voting for Hillary regardless of who her opponent is. His rational? If the US is heading in the tailspin that it is, he would sooner hit the accelerator and get it over with. Personally, I'm not that cynical.
We will soon have our nominee and this will no longer be a hypothetical. How long will we continue with our mentality of (blank) need not apply in the Republican party when it comes to electing a President?
I marvel that when given a choice, any Republican would pick Hillary or Obama over any of the top tier Republican candidates. I for one, will not vote for any Dem either by not showing up to the polls or voting third party. I will vote for the Republican nominee and I won't be holding my nose while doing it either. At the core, these top tier candidates have far better experience at the executive branch than any of the clowns in the Democratic line-up.
I hope that we see conventional wisdom fall on it's face come November in that Hillary is not the shoe-in that everyone in the media is making her out to be. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing conventional wisdom fall on it's face should a Mormon be the one to beat her!
How can you have 125 comments to a post about who you will not vote for and fail to realize that we need someone else?
Recall Newt said that if the Republican field were fractured in the fall, he would consider getting in. In the fall he took the lay of the land and apparently decided it was not fractured enough and said he would not run. Newt may be (dare we say?) wrong. There was an article in the Washington Times the other day that talked about Newt in Iowa. He was quoted as saying he would accept a vice-presidential spot on the ticket. He apparently has previously indicated he would accept a Draft-Newt bid if there were genuine support. The fractured field and brokered convention talk makes the Draft-Newt option not so far-fetched. More here:
Huckabee scares me...I say this as an Evangelical...something shady about him...everyday some new ethical lapses come to light...this man makes GWB look really conservative...wake up people before it's too late...we need to move beyond GWB to someone better not worse...
GOP cant win if no distinctions are made between GWB and GOP nominee for 2008...this is what makes Huckabee the worst choice...I hope people understand this point...we will be handing presidency to HRC...I now understand the criticism leveled at social conservatives...the rise of Huckabee very telling...we are abandoning principles of market economy, free trade, and rule of law...these ideas are so fundamental to our nation's success...why are we abandoning concepts that work...I dont get it...why are people embracing the populist movement...social cons and populists embracing Huck...fair tax non starter...HLA non starter...amendment banning gay marriage non starter...solutions have to be politically viable otherwise just lip service...where have all rational evangelicals gone...on top of it all no one is talking about entitlement reform, threat of Russia and China, business competing in global market, education in global economy, tax reform, energy independence, etc...so many issues on table...we need to be serious people or America will head toward "comfortable mediocrity"...words of Mr. Fred Thompson
Moonbat foreign policy.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.