1

You're right, that's no reason to vote for Guliani - he is just flat out antithetical to what we want.

But, that doesn't mean it's smart to vote for Brownback or Huckabee. Brownback is, in my opinion TOO religious. In the end holding to hard to our faith in the political arena will hurt our ability to exercise our faith.

Huckabee, well, he just does not have the horses. It's not about name recognition, it's about organization and money. It takes the former to generate the later and he doesn't have it.

2

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Sam Brownback, but his being religious is not one of them. My main reason is how he's treated Mitt Romney. Both have changed from pro-choice views to pro-life views, but Brownback tries to underplay it in his own case while criticizing Romney for it, while Romney is honest about it and insists that converts to the pro-life position are going to be even more committed to it while understanding how pro-choice people will hear what they say. So he thinks it's even a plus, and he emphasizes it.

Brownback regularly misrepresents his political opponents. He's exactly the kind of candidate conservatives should be embarrassed about. Romney is supporting conservative views without doing it in such a way that it makes conservatives look bad.

Huckabee is a huge spender. Conservatives who want to undo the Bush spending policy do not want him. He's also got gubernatorial ethics issues.

If religion is going to be an issue, Romney can at least say that he was raised a Mormon and hasn't rejected something else to become a Mormon. Brownback used to be an evangelical and rejected it for Catholicism. Many Protestants would therefore see Brownback as an apostate, which is worse than Romney as a mere heretic. Religion shouldn't be an issue, but those who make it one aren't thinking applying their own views very carefully if the support Brownback but not Romney on this ground.

Ultimately, though, I don't think this unelectability issue is necessarily a bad factor to consider. I would like Romney to be the nominee, but that's at this stage of the game. If it comes time for the primaries, and it's pretty clear that Romney at that point would have little chance against whoever is likely to win the Democratic nomination, I might prefer someone like Giuliani. I think it's pretty silly to think that it's somehow better to vote for a pro-life candidate who will guarantee a John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama presidency than it is to support a Republican nominee who is officially pro-choice but will not press that agenda. Giuliani very clearly says he's pro-choice so he can get pro-choicers not worrying about what he'll do. But his record as mayor shows that he did nothing to advance the pro-choice agenda. Other factors were involved, but abortion actually went down under his watch, in part because he didn't try to expand it the way any of the Democratic top three would surely do.

Certainly if it comes down to a general election between Giuliani and any of them, anyone who stays home out of some supposed moral obligation not to vote for a pro-choice candidate is actually doing something so amazingly immoral that I don't think they can consistently claim to be pro-life. Given his commitment to nominating judges like those Bush has nominated and his unlikeliness to expand abortion rights, I think it's absolutely clear that a pro-life voter has done something downright evil by not doing what they can to vote for him over someone like Hillary. That kind of negligence is just morally irresponsible. But I do agree that pro-life Republicans should prefer a pro-life candidate ideally in the primary, unless it's fairly clear that there's very little chance such a candidate would win the general election.

This also ignores other issues. Even if a Giuliani presidency would be identical to a Hillary presidency on abortion, there may be other things that would make his presidency much better for the country and the world, and someone who stays home to send a message is in violation of a moral obligation to choose the one who would be better.

3

Ron Paul for President!

Pro-Constitution, Pro-Life

Probably have more vetos then any President since Cleveland.

4

Joe:

I think the circularity of your argument is just simply a fact of presidential campaigns. Candidates really DO need to have great hair. In other words, they NEED to be electable. I like everything Alan Keyes stood for, but there was no way he was going to be elected. Candidates need to have that special something--charisma, I guess. I think Newt Gingrich is easily the most articulate and visionary conservative out there. I love hearing him talk about the issues. However, aside from all the baggage he brings with him, there's no way he will be elected President. He looks too much like Benny Hill.

It's sad but people like Winston Churchill and FDR wouldn't have a chance anymore. They are just not physically appealing enough for most of the electorate.

The flip side of this is the meteoric rise of Barack Obama. He has absolutely no record worth mentioning; he is a walking stereotype of a black Democrat, but he has everything Alan Keyes didn't--deep voice, great looks, charisma. It's not right, but it's political reality.

5

Electabilty has GOT to be a factor in making these decisions. The mass media will play favoites, and we need to expect that. But we need to understand that picking a total unknown will not work because they cannot gain the traction necessary to win the nomination.

Ron Paul, who someone mentioned above, is totally unelectable. He was the nominee of the Libertarians and will never gain the GOP nomination. He is an extremist and a social liberal.

6

Ron Paul, who someone mentioned above, is totally unelectable. He was the nominee of the Libertarians and will never gain the GOP nomination. He is an extremist and a social liberal.

No, he is libertarian. Considering the abject failure of both major parties, perhaps we should put away the broad paintbrushes and examine his beliefs. But that will not happen because media only wants to deal with the established parties. Thus, you can vote for Big Brother/big government, or Bigger Brother/bigger government. It's getting harder and harder to discern any difference between (R) and (D).

7

I'm curious Joe. In the post directly above this one, you end by saying that John Edwards' campaigh is quixotic. Aren't the campaigns of Brownback and Huckabee equally quixotic?

8

JParker,

Right On! RON PAUL for president.

This man is one of a kind. He speaks the truth and has integrity. He is very intelligent too. The religious right might have some serious issues with him though, since he does not support our country's current "war on terror"/policy of endless war. I couldn't see Tony Perkins or James Dobson using their media machines to support him.

I may not agree with all his ideas, but this country would benefit greatly if he was president!

9

No, he is libertarian. Considering the abject failure of both major parties, perhaps we should put away the broad paintbrushes and examine his beliefs. But that will not happen because media only wants to deal with the established parties.

You mean Losertarian? Didn't you get someone elected dogcatcher in some one-traffic-light town somewhere during the last national election? Probably not, or you'd be trumpeting it as the start of The Libertarian Revolution.

10

The flip side of this is the meteoric rise of Barack Obama. He has absolutely no record worth mentioning; he is a walking stereotype of a black Democrat

I don't think that's a fair characterization at all. Any resemblance to a Sharpton or a Jackson is passing at best. And truth to tell, he's not especially popular among black democrats. So how is he a walking stereotype?

As far as a record worth mentioning, he has a record of excellent foresight.

Finally, it's a sad truism that in the modern political climate, too much of a record (of any kind) is a liability. The more established your record, the more opponents can find to use against you.

I'm not throwing my weight behind Obama just yet, but so far he looks considerably better than the Democratic alternatives, he says all the right things, and if his relative inexperience is his only down side, then that's actually a pretty good thing.

11

DUNCAN HUNTER. He is everything that conservatives, social, economic, pro-defense, pro-liberty, and anti-immigration want.

How do you decide if somebody is unelectable? We MAKE them electable or unelectable. What if our founding fathers had taken this attitude that we can only elect the "electable" candidates?

This is America. Power belongs to those who have the courage and will to wield it. Be a citizen. Have the courage to fight for our future.

12

You mean Losertarian?

Define "win." It has come to mean who gets to wield the power, not who's ideals will prevail, because the (R)/(D) have no ideals outside of the raw, excercise of power.
We are so far removed from the ideals of the founding fathers that no one today would recognize them, much less embrace them.
We are being played.
I have no intention of ever voting again. I voted for Mr. Bush because of the shrill cries telling me of how critically important the next Supreme Court appointments would be. What did we get? Harriet Meiers nomination

13

Inquiring Minds:
It's getting harder and harder to discern any difference between (R) and (D).

While both parties are indeed deeply flawed, that statement is as asinine as it is simplistic. Let me help you:

Democrats: Pro-Choice
Republicans: Pro-Life
Democrats: Pro-Environment
Republicans: Screw the Environment
Democrats: Anti-Gun (Generally)
Republicans: Pro-Gun (Generally)
Democrats: Tax-and-spend (usually on bureaucratic social programs)
Republicans: Borrow-and-spend (usually on ill-advised foreign policy)
Democrats: Pro civil liberties (except guns)
Republicans: Anti civil liberties (except guns)
Democrats: Wall of separation between church and state
Republicans: One-sided wall, in which the church is protected from the state, but not the other way around

Now, no matter where you fall on those issues, they're not insignificant issues, so to argue that the two major parties are "hard to tell apart" is just plain silly.

14

Inquiring Minds:
What did we get?

You're asking the wrong question. The right question is, "What did we get, as opposed to what we would have gotten if the other viable candidate had won?" That's much different. Love or hate, if you think Samuel Alito is anything like the kind of candidate a President Kerry would have nominated, you're deeply mistaken.

15

tgrish,

Yep, Screw the environment! That sure is the position of every republican I know. I am thankful we have such a thoughful contributor like yourself to capture the nuances of a point of view different from your own.

16

Brian:

I'm not talking about individual Republicans. I'm talking about the party as a whole. The GOP simply hasn't been a champion of environmental causes (even if they have gotten very good at Orwellian language concerning environmental causes). From that perspective, I'm afraid the shoe fits. When you put forth a bill that purports to prevent forest fires by cutting down forests and then call it the "Healthy Forests Initiative," that's pretty close to "Screw the environment." The current administration and the recently-departed GOP congress also worked to weaken the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, etc. Again, "screw the environment." Or, if you wanted to be charitable, it places business interests and personal convenience well ahead of environmental concerns, even if it claims to consider those concerns "important."

(And before someone inevitably goes there, it's true that selective cutting can be a highly effective tool to prevent the spread of forest fires, but it would be a vastly different kind of selective cutting than what HFI authorizes. To prevent fire spread, you prune out younger, smaller, less fire-resistant trees, and clear out some of the underbrush. HFI would "prune out" the commercially viable lumber, which is generally the older, more fire-resistant trees, making it exactly counterproductive.)

All this isn't to say that there aren't any environmentally-friendly Republicans (Arnie springs to mind, although many of the Republicans here might consider him a RINO). Just that generally speaking, attitude toward the environment remains a major point of difference between the two modern parties. I don't think anyone can seriously argue otherwise.

17

So, our Christianity is now determined by who we vote for?

Uh, ok.

18

Flip a few words around, and this post would nicely describe the predicament of progressives, too.

19

Far from being unelectable, Ron Paul is actually the SEXIEST candidate in the stable, including announced Dems.

Reason #1: He's known as "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives because he has a long record of saying . . . loudly . . .

- NO to continuing the Iraq war which we were deliberately lied into

- NO to keeping our borders open, extending amnesty or guest worker status

- NO to sending our jobs and manufacturing plant to Red China

- NO to dissolving the USA and merging with Mexico and Canada ("SPP" or "NAU")

- NO to building a monster NAFTA superhighway through the middle of the country

- NO to creating money out of thin air and charging compound interest on it

- NO to national bankruptcy

- NO to Big Brother legilsation like the National ID Card that strips us of our Constitutional liberties in the name of "The War on Terror"

- NO to unconstitutional globalist bills like CAFTA, for example, that are voted into law WITHOUT BEING READ

- NO to government by Executive Orders, black ops, and other giant squids that remain invisible to citizens' eyes.

In case you haven't noticed, that's exactly what the American public is saying! And they're begging to hear it from someone in Washington.

Reason #2: Ron Paul is the only candidate who's not owned and operated by the same invisible consortium that owns and operate the news media.

Is it any surprise he can't get news coverage? He couldn't get mentioned on TV unless he hacked his wife to death at the Superbowl halftime. And he'd never do that -- he can't afford the ticket.

However, the very demonstrable fact of his being blacked out by the news media is actually a powerful talking point to establish that the race is fixed by the powers that control who gets news coverage, and that he is truly the only independent candidate of the whole bunch.

Reason #3: He's clean and honest - can't be bought, sold or controlled. No plain white envelopes circulating around the House with his name inside. Naturally he's hated by the invisible powers and their ubiquitous toadies.

How many other candidates have never voted for a tax increase or a salary increase? That alone is divine music to voter ears.

So, really, what could be SEXIER to ordinary American voters who don't understsand how the power structure works? What could be a more compelling platform?

A skillful, widespread grass roots organization could catapult this man into the White House . . . where he belongs.

20

AMERICA'S NOW DOING THE VERY SAME THINGS THE COMMUNISTS DID TO THEIR PEOPLE. LOOKS LIKE THE CONSERVATIVES LOST AFTER ALL: http://www.deanberryministries.net/index.html