it seems to me that this Dumond situation should be a death blow to Huckabee’s core strength.
The socially conservative section of the Republican party, I have to imagine, want more than some one who speaks what they want to hear.
Like anyone who takes the time to vote (I hope) they take interest in a candidate based on their message, but then they consider the candidate’s track record too.
This Dumond flap is a slap in the face to the idea of governing based on shared conservative social values. Is this the final nail is in the coffin for this faction just outright staying home on election day? I still don’t seem them throwing in with these other leading candidates who’ve all flip-flopped on abortion at some point… it may be too “iffy” for them.
It is frustrating for social conservatives to see time after time when the “Hawks†(defense conservatives) and the “Wall Streeters†(Fiscal Conservatives) ask the Social Conservatives to overlook various flaws or difficult policy positions of a particular candidate with the familiar refrain “Unite behind our party candidate, because this candidate can win the election, for party unity, etc...â€.
However, when someone like Huckabee, who is a solid social conservative, actually gains some recognition or traction in various polls, those Hawks or WallStreeters are completely unwilling to overlook any policy positions they disagree with (such as immigration reform, or taxes). Where are the cries to “rally around our candidateâ€? It always seems to be “rally around my candidate†as long as they are Fiscal Conservatives first, and Defense Conservatives second, and Social Conservatives third or not at all…
There are no perfect candidates, and some have reminded us that even Ronald Reagan was not a perfect candidate when he was running for President. I believe that a Social Conservative can surround himself with wise advisors on Defense or Fiscal issues, and arrive an excellent positions on many complex issues. (As long as he manages to avoid the vast array of Closet Clintonites masquerading as “study groups†offering recommendations). He can also use excellent communication skills, as Reagan did, to rally the people to support well thought out conservative positions.
I am tired of the Hawks and WallStreeters always looking down their noses at someone who differs from their opinion saying “He’s not a true conservative†(in that person’s definition). (Or at least their interpretation of certain events in a candidate’s past, whether out of context or not).
Some have written about a Big Tent for Republicans, and I would like to see some of the Hawks and WallStreeters show one iota of willingness to embrace a candidate that doesn’t toe the line on their issues…
I respect the Powerline authors, and they are very well read and well spoken, but I ask that they consider again Gov. Huckabee’s record on taxes (not just the MSM’s take on his record)…
I think Mike Huckabee’s communication skills and solid conservative record (social first, then fiscal) make him an excellent candidate. Please avoid spending time burying him (at least according to one Plforum poster) before the voters in most states even have a chance to hear the candidate’s message for themselves…
Where does a person go to read Huckabee’s record as a social conservative? What laws did he support and enforce, what actions did he undertake as a governor that demonstrate he is a social conservative? Just curious, because I have been looking around his sites and can’t find it. I just can’t shake the feeling he is a populist, but not a conservative in social, fiscal or security matters. I would like to read something definitive that would prove otherwise.
Where does a person go to read Huckabee’s record as a social conservative?
That will be a short trip: He doesn’t have a record as a social conservative.
He does have the record of a Democat Liberal: he commuted the sentences of over 700 criminals (or one every 4 days while he was governor), raised taxes and increased spending.
Where does a person go to read Huckabee’s record as a social conservative? What laws did he support and enforce, what actions did he undertake as a governor that demonstrate he is a social conservative? Just curious, because I have been looking around his sites and can’t find it. I just can’t shake the feeling he is a populist, but not a conservative in social, fiscal or security matters. I would like to read something definitive that would prove otherwise.
It’s a good question, in Arkansas, “social conservative” probably is taken pretty much for granted these days. But what Huck has going for him is that he sounds authentic--he creamed Mitt on the religion questions in the youtube debate--and that he hasn’t done or said anything on religious questions to get him in trouble. Mitt was in a nest of vipers in Mass from the social conservative standpoint, ditto Giuliani in NYC, now they have to defend problematic actions and stances from the social conservative view.
Where does a person go to read Huckabee’s record as a social conservative? What laws did he support and enforce, what actions did he undertake as a governor that demonstrate he is a social conservative? Just curious, because I have been looking around his sites and can’t find it. I just can’t shake the feeling he is a populist, but not a conservative in social, fiscal or security matters. I would like to read something definitive that would prove otherwise.
It’s a good question, in Arkansas, “social conservative” probably is taken pretty much for granted these days. But what Huck has going for him is that he sounds authentic--he creamed Mitt on the religion questions in the youtube debate--and that he hasn’t done or said anything on religious questions to get him in trouble. Mitt was in a nest of vipers in Mass from the social conservative standpoint, ditto Giuliani in NYC, now they have to defend problematic actions and stances from the social conservative view.
The real question though is why was religion a part of the youtube debate, or any other debate?
On a related subject, Hucakbee’s ads in Iowa, TV and Radio both, delcare him to be the “true christian leader” and that America “should have a true christian president”.
If this guy were to win the Republican nomination, and Obama were to win the Democrat nomiation, do we have ads in our future from Huckabee proclaiming him to be the ‘true white canddiate and that America should have a true white as president’?
Mick the candidates don’t pick the questions.But after watching the debates it just seems to me that the GOP candidates seem to face the Jesus questions regularly.Where as the Dems do not.The religion question is brought up by the hosts as almost a club to sort of kind of beat the GOP over the head with.If they don’t ask the questions it does not become an issue.But beneath the surface it seems to me that the hosts want to make it an issue.As if the voters see religion as the CENTRAL part of the GOP candidates.
Great, so Huckabee does not have any record as a social conservative during his time as governor. Considering he does not have a record for being a conservative in other areas, who in the world is supporting him and why? Is the only reason because he is an evagelical Christan populist preacher?
Considering there is no record of him governing as a conservative in any political area (social, fiscal, security), I don’t see how I could vote for him. He almost seems the anti-thesis of what a libertarian minded citizen would want. With all his greater good Christan talk, I find him a bit scary when it comes to individual liberty. Not as scary as Clinton, but maybe more scary than Obama. I don’t see how he could win the general election unless most people truly hate Clinton and cast votes against her rather than for a Huckabee.
Mick the candidates don’t pick the questions.But after watching the debates it just seems to me that the GOP candidates seem to face the Jesus questions regularly.Where as the Dems do not.The religion question is brought up by the hosts as almost a club to sort of kind of beat the GOP over the head with.If they don’t ask the questions it does not become an issue.But beneath the surface it seems to me that the hosts want to make it an issue.As if the voters see religion as the CENTRAL part of the GOP candidates.
I don’t disagree with you, but isn’t the real reason the moderators or hosts of these debates bring up religion in repubican events and not democrat events because the republicans basically bring it upon themselves?
Take Huckabee for example. Without his religion, he’s an ugly version of John Edwards. All Huckabee drones on and on and on about is his evangelical baptism? His campaign adds are all about him being the “true christian” candidate. And while I beleive that the core bigotry of evangelicals in regards to Mormons is what required Romney to make his Mormon speech on Thursday, didn’t Romeny basically bring this on himself as well, by constantly talking about “faith” over the last year?
It is frustrating for social conservatives to see time after time when the “Hawks†(defense conservatives) and the “Wall Streeters†(Fiscal Conservatives) ask the Social Conservatives to overlook various flaws or difficult policy positions of a particular candidate with the familiar refrain “Unite behind our party candidate, because this candidate can win the election, for party unity, etc...â€.
However, when someone like Huckabee, who is a solid social conservative, actually gains some recognition or traction in various polls, those Hawks or WallStreeters are completely unwilling to overlook any policy positions they disagree with (such as immigration reform, or taxes). Where are the cries to “rally around our candidateâ€? It always seems to be “rally around my candidate†as long as they are Fiscal Conservatives first, and Defense Conservatives second, and Social Conservatives third or not at all…
There are no perfect candidates, and some have reminded us that even Ronald Reagan was not a perfect candidate when he was running for President. I believe that a Social Conservative can surround himself with wise advisors on Defense or Fiscal issues, and arrive an excellent positions on many complex issues. (As long as he manages to avoid the vast array of Closet Clintonites masquerading as “study groups†offering recommendations). He can also use excellent communication skills, as Reagan did, to rally the people to support well thought out conservative positions.
I am tired of the Hawks and WallStreeters always looking down their noses at someone who differs from their opinion saying “He’s not a true conservative†(in that person’s definition). (Or at least their interpretation of certain events in a candidate’s past, whether out of context or not).
Some have written about a Big Tent for Republicans, and I would like to see some of the Hawks and WallStreeters show one iota of willingness to embrace a candidate that doesn’t toe the line on their issues…
I respect the Powerline authors, and they are very well read and well spoken, but I ask that they consider again Gov. Huckabee’s record on taxes (not just the MSM’s take on his record)…
I think Mike Huckabee’s communication skills and solid conservative record (social first, then fiscal) make him an excellent candidate. Please avoid spending time burying him (at least according to one Plforum poster) before the voters in most states even have a chance to hear the candidate’s message for themselves…
Thanks. whitemiata, -Albany NY
You have a real short memory, or your one of those people who always have to have it your own way. It’s your way, or no way at all.
You’d like to see “hawks and wallstreets” show one itota of willingness to “embrace a candidate who doesn’t toe their line"…
What the hell do you call George W. Bush? He’s one of your “born again evangelicals’, isn’t he? For cyin out loud! What did we get with Bush and his religion driven “compassionate conservatism”?
Spending out the ass, nation building, medicare D, low life mortgage holder bail out, and on and on and on....
I’d like to see “social conservatives” for once give some semblance of acknowledgement to the realities of the world and not force the rest of us to constantly genuflect at the altar of born again christianity!
You have a real short memory, or your one of those people who always have to have it your own way. It’s your way, or no way at all.
You’d like to see “hawks and wallstreets” show one itota of willingness to “embrace a candidate who doesn’t toe their line"…
What the hell do you call George W. Bush? He’s one of your “born again evangelicals’, isn’t he? For cyin out loud! What did we get with Bush and his religion driven “compassionate conservatism”?
Spending out the ass, nation building, medicare D, low life mortgage holder bail out, and on and on and on....
I’d like to see “social conservatives” for once give some semblance of acknowledgement to the realities of the world and not force the rest of us to constantly genuflect at the altar of born again christianity!
yes and likewise its hard to feel sympathy that Republican candidates have to answer to so many that are concerned about religious issues considering that one of Karl Rove’s supposed key victories for the Republicans was to help deliver this component of the election votes. Especially in the key state of Ohio in 04.
yes and likewise its hard to feel sympathy that Republican candidates have to answer to so many that are concerned about religious issues considering that one of Karl Rove’s supposed key victories for the Republicans was to help deliver this component of the election votes. Especially in the key state of Ohio in 04.
I realize your blue collar job must keep you busy, but do you know what you’re talking about even 10% of the time?
I think not.
You’re babbling here, again and mixing everything up into one red, white and blue collar mess.
This thread must have been invented by someone who never found the bravery to serve in the military.
Our brave soldiers enlist and go in harms way precisely b/c we are the most moralistic country to ever rise since God’s creation (even withstanding Cheney’s efforts to work the dark side).
This thread must have been invented by someone who never found the bravery to serve in the military.
Our brave soldiers enlist and go in harms way precisely b/c we are the most moralistic country to ever rise since God’s creation (even withstanding Cheney’s efforts to work the dark side).
What do you know about America? I thought you were a Scot.
