1

Romney would be the clear candidate of the Republicans if he wasn't a Mormon.

It is time for the religious bigots to elect the best candidate and quit trying to elect a religion. Last time I checked Mormons were even more conservative then Born Again Christians so what is their beef?

Isn't the name of the Mormon Church, The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints. Oh I see they do not believe in Jesus Christ...well it is in their name. The Mormons are way more conservative then the Catholics and the Methodists these days and I don't see anyone putting them down or saying they are not Christians.

2

Joe, you wrote:
"I'm not sure if I sour on Thompson that I can fully embrace Huckabee, though. His economic populism concerns me, though it would appeal to a large portion of American voters. Ironically, I think he will have a tougher time winning the GOP nomination than he would in winning the general election."

(Oh do sour on Thompson already! Pretty please?)

What exactly do you consider "populist" about Huckabee's economics?

And why exactly does it concern you? --because with such economic views he couldn't get the nomination?, or because you have religious/philosophical/political/economic objections to Huckabee's economics?

Elaboration please.

[ps. R-O-N P-A-U-L ]

3

I wish I could have met you and more of the bloggers at the meeting. (I was more of a wife than a blogger at the meeting, it turns out. When I wasn't running back across town to attend the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities convention - what I was actually supposed to be doing in Washington - I needed to sit with my husband. )

Thank you, Joe, for alerting so many of us to the Washington Briefing! And thanks to FRC for the event itself.

(and next year, we need to see what it would take to get conservative Christians to live-blog at the ASBH meeting)

4

Joe, your first point says it all, "1. The most significant insight I gained from The Washington Briefing was not about the candidates but about the bloggers: Right-leaning bloggers are out of touch with a large portion--if not the majority--of conservatives in America."

5

Good thoughts on point one. Is this because bloggers write to attract links-in and comments from other bloggers rather than to influence the public at large?

6

Ironically, I think he will have a tougher time winning the GOP nomination than he would in winning the general election.

Welcome to the world of Ron Paul.

Unless you are anointed by the powerbrokers and kingmakers, you are only the darkest of horses. With only 5 second soundbites reported by the gatekeepers, there is no way to get substantive ideas or philosophies articulated to the general public.
And the whole issue of following the Constitution is a non-starter.

Our choices are really reduced to what we are given, so in this respect we are in the same situation that the Iraqi's were under Saddam: vote for Saddam or vote for death. No wonder he got 99%. Only our choice is liberal-elite or liberal-elite-lite.

7

Joe,

Glad to see you posted these--I was hoping you would. My thoughts:

I'm with you on nearly all of them except seven, where I would register strong disagreement. The fact that he got fewer votes than Tancredo doesn't say much, as I think nearly everyone voted in the straw poll as they would in the primary. I talked with probably a half-dozen non-bloggers who said that Giuliani made them more comfortable about voting for him in the general, including one nice pair from Texas who were about as conservative as you can get.

There's no way to prove the point, because we're talking about imprecise measurements of crowd reaction, but the main point is that I don't think the straw poll proves what you think it does.

The rest of your post, however, is great! Way to stir the fire of discussion again...

8

Joe,
as an American, Republican, Southern Baptist, whatever other credentials required to established unimportant bona fides, I support your decision to champion the cause of Huckabee and disenfranchise Thompson, if that’s what the Carter household chooses to do. However, I have to question your rationale for doing so. Your dissatisfaction with Thompson seems to be based on his decision to ignore advice regarding a straw poll for social conservatives. I didn’t see any other reason listed in the posting, unless it was dissatisfaction for the anti-Romney, -Giuliani literature.

It seems that Fred ignores straw polls. Period. Can’t remember when he even tried to participate in a straw poll: Ames, Texas, no other straw polls come to mind. It seems rather petty (sorry, can’t think of another word) that you would abandon Fred because he ignored advice on another straw poll. The fact that this one may have been more important to you doesn’t really register as a reason to abandon Fred. Still, see comment above. Not using this post to convince you otherwise at this point.

Was this poll the FRC straw poll? If not, then some of the following doesn’t apply, but most of it still does.

If so, my impression is that Fred acquitted himself well at the FRC. In fact, it seems that Fred was simply being himself, without dissimulation. That seems to be the opinion of others bloggers who attended. His commitment to crucial life issues was offered without any special concessions to the sponsors of the event. And why should Fred be anything other than Fred in this area? To gain the support of a group that has already declared him to be the enemy?

The real issue is whether the Religious Right has made itself irrelevant. Dobson has become the poster boy for the Religious Right, and he has done quite enough damage, first, by his quasi-endorsement of Gingrich (whose private morality is not so far from Rudy’s), and second, by his attack on other Republican candidates. It matters little to me that Dobson doesn’t support Fred, but I am curious to know if you, nor any other rational Republican, think that Fred somehow benefits from kowtowing to Dobson and others like him at this poing. As much as I support Dobson’s stands on abortion, gay issues, etc., I don’t find his tactics particularly beneficial. It almost seems like Dobson is in a snit because he is not kingmaker this time out.

And it’s not just me. Others have noted that Dobson very quickly ruled out support for almost any candidate, with the possible exception of Huckabee. He is probably now considered a sideline issue for the Republican Party, and will likely contribute to Hillary’s election because he mans the bucket committee. (For you non-Baptists, the bucket committee is the church group that dumps buckets of water on any issue in the church that might get people excited about the church or a program.)

So if Dobson and crew don’t like Fred, why would Fred make any real movement in their direction? What does he gain by obeisance? Does it prove his pro-live position? Or does it do more harm than good because it looks like he has made them arbiters of his candidacy, to some extent?

Besides, like the rest of the straw polls to date, Mitt Romney had packed the audience again, and won the straw poll (Again, if the straw poll was not FRC, this is not applicable). Should any of us actually believe that Romney is the moral issues leader? I would think that you have seen the Log Cabin Republican video on Romney’s record of his support for abortion, gay rights, and opposition to Reagan. In spite of, shall we say, an inconsistent history on issues that have been important to social conservatives, he wins another straw poll. Simply amazing. Fred’s record is a bit better, even if he lost the FRC straw poll.

Huckabee is an interesting choice. Do we think that the nation is going to flip the Arkansas quarter again and be happy that it came up Republican this time? Other than his real commitment to moral issues, which Clinton the First did not have (and I mean that in a sexual, economic, selling pardons, kind of way), more than a few of us think that Huckabee is just another southern populist from Arkansas who truly believes that the state should make very important decisions about our lives. I also am concerned that there is no definitive statement on Iraq, unless you count “we broke it, we own it.” Maybe I’m missing something, but that doesn’t seem like a commitment to fighting the war on terror with resolve. At least Rudy has that going for him. Fat kids are important, but so is global jihadism.

9

everyday Romney would be the clear candidate of the Republicans if he wasn't a Mormon.

I disagree. Whether its fair or not, Romney comes across as a flip-flopper. After the GOP bashed John Kerry for that in the last election it makes it difficult for them to embrace a candidate who does the same thing.

Oh I see they do not believe in Jesus Christ...well it is in their name.

Mormons aren't Christians. They don’t believe that in the Triune God.

Baus Elaboration please.

I'll try to put a post together on that.

Don Is this because bloggers write to attract links-in and comments from other bloggers rather than to influence the public at large?

Most people find smaller blogs from links they clicked through on larger blogs. I'm sure some bloggers believe that they simply can't have an influence unless they try to attract links and so adjust their content accordingly.

Scott Your dissatisfaction with Thompson seems to be based on his decision to ignore advice regarding a straw poll for social conservatives.

No, it's not the straw poll that matters but the people who vote in them. Thompson's camp is focused on appealing to "moderates" (as some of his people have told me) and so aren't too keen on doing anything that might turn that crowd off. If that means ignoring the social conservatives, then so be it. Thompson doesn't really seem to care if we vote for him or not.

I was excited about Thompson in the beginning. But I can't think of one thing that he has said or done that has led me to believe that he is the best candidate. Have you noticed something I've missed?

10

Clarification:

The Jesus of the Mormon faith and the Jesus of genuine Christianity are NOT the same Jesus. Among other things, our Jesus is God Incarnate, theirs also goes by the name the ArchAngel Michael. Their Jesus is also Satan's brother; our Jesus is an only child.

Our Jesus was born of a virgin who'd never been with anyone. Their Jesus was born as a result of sexual intercourse in the most literal sense between Mary the fiance of Joseph and the Mormon version of Father God.

Also, when a Mormon dies, if he was really really really good, he doesn't merely get to go to Heaven (nearly everybody who didn't kill someone obtains to the mormon's version of it to some degree--they have three levels of Heavenly reward.) Rather, he and his wife get to go be the God and Goddess of another planet. Likewise their Father God was once a mortal man on some other planet somewhere before he got his current gig (in their doctrine) as was his father, and his father and ...

And that's just the beginning. Before you go defending Mormon doctrine as Christian, I'd suggest finding out what they actually teach. In this country, you can believe whatever you want. But that doesn't mean Christians have to pretend Mormons are preaching the same gospel we are, because they aren't.

That said, religious tests *are* unconstitutional. Though our founders probably had requiring candidates to be a member of a particular Christian denomination in mind, the real problem with Romney isn't that he's a Mormon. In general, politically, Mormons, Orthodox/Conservative Jews, and Christians (of Catholic and Protestant flavors) are great allies on many issues.

The problem with Romney is, with his liberal record and abrupt conservative conversion on the road to Des Moines, I couldn't trust him even if he'd been a baptist preacher for twenty years instead. My problem isn't his religion--my problem is that I don't believe a word he says. He says whatever our itching ears want to hear. The last thing we need is another politican willing to do and say whatever it takes to get and stay in power. I've had my fill of that mentality with Craig (my senator unfortunately.)

I'd wager, though, the way the democrats are playing, if Romney's the nominee, and he probably will be, we will all find out more about Mormonism than we ever wanted to know. Some of it exaggerated, misconstrued, or patently false. They'd try to tell us Mormons drink babies' blood* in their secret temple ceremonies if they thought they'd get away with it. You haven't seen prejudice until you've seen Democrats go after a minority that disagrees with them.

*In Ancient Rome, Pagans spread this exact rumor about the early Christians, based upon a misunderstanding of the eucharist.

11

Right-leaning bloggers are out of touch with a large portion--if not the majority--of conservatives in America. . . . The top four issues that voters said were important to them are "life" (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, embryo destructive research, etc.), marriage, tax cuts, and permanent tax relief for families. Aside from tax cuts, these issues are rarely talked about by the bloggers on the Right.

Well, first, that's certainly not the impression I get of the right-wing blogosphere. Aside from the warbloggers, I see taxes as the least common issue on the right - though that may be a reflection of which blogs I read.

More importantly, I think your characterization of "the majority of conservatives in America" may be skewed. The broad range of bloggers you spoke to (running from religious extremists to Townhall to Wonkette) is, I would suspect, much more representative of America, or conservative America, than are the group of attendees at an FRC convention.

Further:

semantic distinction between "social conservatives" and "fiscal conservatives" presents a false dichotomy. Conservatism is rooted in principles (transcendent moral order, social continuity, prudence, etc) that naturally have implications for economics. If you are a conservative you are conservative about matters of society and thus likely to espouse economic policies that are fiscally conservative as well. But conservatism cannot begin with economic or fiscal issues as the primary concerns, much less push social issues to the periphery. Anyone who thinks tax reduction is essential while abortion and marriage are secondary or unimportant cannot rightly be considered to be "conservative", at least not by the standards of the American conservative tradition.

and . . .

The idea that Rudy is a palatable general election candidate for so-cons is wishful thinking. . . . Erick Erickson of RedState said, "While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP." My reaction: Let 'em go. Let them deal with the "lesser of two evils" dilemma and decide that they can't vote for Huckabee. And then when Hillary gets elected we can say it was their fault, right?

This is more of the same problem. Maybe your understanding of conservatism doesn't allow for divorcing economic issues from meddling with other people's lives, but for many - including many traditional conservatives - it does. It's simply not true that the economic conservative/social conservative (really, "Christian conservative") distinction isn't compatible with "the standards of the American conservative tradition". It's a staple of American conservatism (though largely promulgated by economic conservatives, who understandably don't want to be dragged down by the berserker jihdists who joined their party in reaction to the Civil Rights Movement).

Note that you yourself use the econ-con/so-con distinction explicitly to analyze Giuliani's support (referring to "socons" three times, and quoting another person doing so once, in the space of four short paragraphs). As you also note, the GOP is the party of economic conservatism - it only became socially reactionary after WWII, and totally whacko after the Civil Rights Movement. But there's no question that it's a conservative party (and far from being strictly libertarian), even if only viewed from the economic angle. In short, you can't understand American conservatism, especially of the 20th/21st centuries, without accepting the economic/religious distinction, and most conservatives themselves accept it and use it all the time.

This comes back around to your claim about blogging and the interests of American conservatives. You keep trying to insist that sex-obsessed religious conservatism is the definition of American conservatism tout suite (and, hilariously, cite an informal poll of people who paid $95 to attend an FRC-sponsored religious-conservative convention as evidence!). But you also note that the conservative party contains a large percentage of people who define it differently, you complain that conservative bloggers are interested in a much wider range of things than you are, and you find you can't explain the support trends for the conservative front-runner without appealing to a multi-pronged definition of conservatism. It seems obvious that your insistence that only your interests define conservatism is just wrong.

As for who is responsible for losing an election, it may be that economic conservatives would not be happy with Huckabee (I don't know). But it's unlikely they would organize a mass refusal to vote for him with the explicit understanding that they were throwing away the election. It's certainly the case that no economic conservatives have so far organized large group meetings specifically for the purpose of disavowing Huckabee before he even wins the nomination. That's religious conservative schtick. If Huckabee loses with lukewarm support from conservatives, it will be because he simply failed to craft a platform that appealed to a large-enough body within his own political party - kind of a significant failing for a candidate, especially if you have it as an official platform plank that you refuse to address the interests of half your party members. If Giuliani loses, it will be because an influential body of his own party leaders actively organized against him and openly encouraged party members not to vote for their own candidate. Either way, it's not the economic conservatives' refusal to play ball that's at issue - it's the religious conservatives' eternal insistence that everybody else always has to do everything the way they dictate that will finally fail them.

But, please, keep it up. It's what God wants you to do.

12

Very interesting reflections on the event. I would have to say that there are bloggers, such as me, and others I know who actually do write about the issues that people care about more than most of the popular bloggers you linked to. The difference, and I stated this before last year at the God Blog Con, is that I have stopped playing the linking game and stepped out of the EGO system. And while I may not have the largest audience online, I do have a following that respects what I put out on my blog.

Also, the real debate was the Values Voter Debate put on by Janet Folger. The "top tier" candidates failed to show because they were too chicken to answer serious questions. Giving a stump speech says nothing...and last night, on FNC once again, Huckabee showed that he has what it takes to get the nomination.

I just wish all the naysayers would get a clue. Thompson has no energy, and I think he needs rest.

Go HUCK! :)

And I would add to your list of people's speeches to see from your event - Phyllis Schfley - what she says is the truth and if a candidate doesn't deliver on those issues, they shouldn't be nominated.

And if people have the time, I also recommend watching the tribute to Dr. Dobson. That was very cool.

13

Joe, it was good to see you again in DC. Fantastic after thoughts and very very true. I have a lot more to blog about with regard to the briefing and I am a little overwhelmed with the hype/reality mix. Still sorting it through. Your insight is helping a great deal.

Thanks again!

14

Kevin,

Are you saying that evangelicals are now Republicans because of racism?

This is more of the same problem. Maybe your understanding of conservatism doesn't allow for divorcing economic issues from meddling with other people's lives, but for many - including many traditional conservatives - it does. It's simply not true that the economic conservative/social conservative (really, "Christian conservative") distinction isn't compatible with "the standards of the American conservative tradition". It's a staple of American conservatism (though largely promulgated by economic conservatives, who understandably don't want to be dragged down by the berserker jihdists who joined their party in reaction to the Civil Rights Movement).

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

15

9. Erick Erickson of RedState said, "While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP." My reaction: Let 'em go. Let them deal with the "lesser of two evils" dilemma and decide that they can't vote for Huckabee. And then when Hillary gets elected we can say it was their fault, right?

No, even if it's Economic Conservatives who bolt, everything is all the religious conservatives' fault. As happened in 1992 when pro-Choice Ross Perot won 19%, it was the fault of religious conservatives. It's amazing how many people are willing to throw reliable conservatives under the buss in the name of folks who if anything are very likely to split their votes and support a Democratic Candidate for Congress. I've got more thoughts at my place.

16

Hi Joe,

I couldn't get your Trackback option to work, but I just wanted to let you know that I quoted you and linked to you on my blog today. Good stuff.

17

I hate to single out any religious, but seriously, you really have to wonder about the thought-processes of a grown man who chooses to be a Morman. The linguistic/archeological/anthropological errors in the Book of Morman aren't even open to discussion; it's a obvious and laughable forgery. Even to those of us sympathetic to creationist arguments find Morman claims simply ludicrous. If your a Morman at a grown age, you're either extremely gullible or don't take religious doctrine seriously.

Same goes for Glenn Beck. He's a funny guy whom I'll agree with on most issues, but his hysterical screeds against illegal immigrants and how "human civilzation is falling apart" are purely emotional and made without any deeper thought of the issues beyond what his fellow talking heads parrot. If you listen to him on the AM dial day-after-day, you really have to wonder what goes on inside his head. I wouldn't want him to be president, and I don't think I'd want Romney.

Romney's resume is impressive, but something's just not right with the guy. Last night in the debate he appeared like a rehearsed empty-suit would was going to play the handsome, dashing conservative until he gets the nomination, then go off on his own frolic-and-detour. I don't know whether he's conservative or not, but he's said nothing to suggest that he'll implement any Reagan-style reforms if given the opportunity. Reminds me of someone else I met eight years ago.

Still, I'd take him over Hillary.

18

First, I am getting very tired of hearing the word "bigotry" in context of Mitt Romney and concerns about Mormonism. I guess we can thank Dick Morris (no theologian) for helping to push that idea along. Bigotry by definition is a prejudice based on irrational fear. Christians are not opposed to Mormonism out of an irrational fear. We are opposed to it because we DISAGREE with it, and consider it false theology. Aside from that, it's a red herring. How long has Orrin Hatch served in the Senate?

Second, it seems to me that the media is being allowed to anoint the GOP nominee. That ought to raise someone's eyebrows.

Third, I think it's high time that the other "conservative" fringe candidates get out of the race and coalesce behind Huckabee, who clearly is the best of the bunch. If they don't, I have to wonder if the real agenda isn't really to divide and conquer the conservative Christian movement through dilution. Fracture the movement through disagreement over candidates, and we put Hillary in the White House for sure. I begin to think some Republicans would be just fine with that.

19

What's to stop Dobson and Perkins from running for public office in 2008? Dobson could run for Senator or Congressman for Colorado and Perkins could run for President. If the republicans no longer represent their values-shouldn't they start their own party? Campaign funding shouldn't be an issue.

20

Well, there is another flaw as well!?

Why is it that you feel the audience at this event in DC represent conservative America?

My feelings right now are that if Huckabee is the presidential candidate, I will vote for him. If not, when I vote I am leaving the presidential slot blank.

21

I would note that Peoria is about as 'blue' a mid-sized city as can be found. Maybe Fargo would be better suited as an opposite to NY.

22

Joe,

I enjoy your blog, and I appreciate your efforts to put election issues before us. I also have to agree that "political bloggers" don't seem to be able to connect with the issues that concern the average voter is because they get too busy talking to each other.

Having said all that, I have to say that I think that Mike Huckabee is the man for me so far. I just don't resonate with Fred Thompson at all.

23

I agree with you, Joe, that most of the guys who sat at the table at the Blogger's Breakout Session are out of touch with why the people at the Washington Briefing were there.

I was bothered by the mention of the three parts of the conservative coalition at the Briefing and don't believe that it's possible for most of us to separate the "social" from "conservative." I know that the men and women that I saw applauding and standing, and the ones that I talked to responded to the life, family and small government issues. There did seem to be more vocal approval when fiscal issues were mentioned. But the standing ovations came with mentions of God, life, and family.

It seemed odd to me that no one at the blogger's meet mentioned "ProLifeBlogs.com" or even FreeRepublic.com, although I believe that some of the plitical bloggers started on FR and I know that some of the pro-life bloggers post and link to ProLifeblogs.com.

One of the scariest things I'm seeing is the way that religion is being discussed because of Romney's Mormonism. I just know that all the atheists are bookmarking our conversations to use against us in later debates with believers.

The bloggers on the left are more of a united front and have strong financial backing, as was mentioned at the Breakout session. However, no one seems to notice that it's not just Soro's money that gives them a voice. Science magazine runs a site for bloggers - there may be 3 that are believers and one or two that are pro-life. The science Journals, the bioethics journals and centers, as well as the editors and faculty are frankly anti-life, anti-God and increasingly partisan. The "Progressives" at the Bioethics conference and on the Internet don't even bother to hide their ridicule for our side.

24

Joe,
I was trying to be pragmatic and look for the best anti-Hillary, which I believe is Rudy. Then I watched Hackabee on Glen Beck and I flipped. I guess I would rather vote for who I believe would be the best President. I WANT him to win.

I don't know if the power brokers will allow a fair hearing but I believe he is the most attractive candidate. I like his clarity of vision. This is, I believe, the most important election in my lifetime. I think soon we will have to gather the wagons around this next president. I just hope he or she is worthy.

25

Joe,

Thanks for this post. I was wondering when it would come.

As for some of your comments. I don't understand why we as Republican, Christian, or Conservative voters should care what sort of war chest Hillary has against Rudy or what the opposition is going to say about Mitt Romney.

Its one thing to recognize weaknesses and then attempt to overcome them. It is another all together to give up the fight before it has begun.

Like you I intend to vote on principle. This is why I will not vote for Rudy Giuliani. Not in the primary and not in the general, no matter how much folks decide to threaten me with Hillary.

I do intend to vote for Mitt Romney. He hasn't said or done anything yet to change my mind about him. If it looks like it will be close between him and Huckabee, i'll still vote for Romney but Giuliani will win because those two will split the conservative vote.

Hopefully you will eventually get on board the Mitt Romney train, we'll welcome you. If it is fear of the flip-flopping charge that keeps you from coming aboard I question your state of mind. j/k

Seriously though, if that is the worse that they can say about Mitt Romney and it is recycled from a previous election to boot, how great a candidate is that?

26

The Christian doctrine of "Just War" and our Constitution itself is the basis for the principled stand that Congressman Ron Paul has taken against letting a President wage war without the declaration mandated by our Constitution. Ron Paul is a dream-come-true candidate for Christians. As a doctor he has done more to end the practice of abortion than ANY other candidate. As a Congressman he is the ONLY politician running who has never voted for a tax increase, or a pay raise, or taken a junket. His life is a social conservative's perfect picture: 50 years of faithful marriage, 5 achieving children, 18 grandkids, decades of charity work for his patients as an M.D., 5 years as a U.S. Air Force Captain as a flight surgeon. The list goes on and on. And, most importantly, Ron Paul is the man who can cast Hillary Clinton as a pro-war candidate, which is WHAT SHE IS! She's voted WITH Bush and the Neocons on every war spending measure! Are you ready for Hillary as Commander in Chief on a rampage in Iraq and Iran? That's what you're going to get if you turn your back on the Christian peace candidate who can beat Hillary, since 70% of the American people want this war ended now. Stubborn pride is a sin. Is it possible that any of those TV pastors who told you that this war was God's will were wrong? Have any of them ever been wrong before? Does the Bible say: "Thou shalt believe what you're told on some pastor's TV show?"

27

Ron Paul is the man who can cast Hillary Clinton as a pro-war candidate,

And we want this man for Commander-In-Chief because he is afraid to use war when it is necessary?

28

FRC action leadership sits on knowledge of false results from its "value voters debate poll" due to online vote blocking
*************************************************************

The FRC action committee is sitting on the knowledge from phone calls they had Friday and Monday to their offices that their online poll was blocking voters from voting. For christians and value voters that could not attend their DC meetings, many of their votes were blocked putting into question the results from this meeting. These people who maybe too busy, elderly/disabled, or to poor to attend the DC meeting appear to have have been disenfranchised. Voters calling on Friday and Monday notified the FRC action group that there votes were denied when they tried to vote online. FRC action representatives seemed genuine in saying they realize that this happened and that there was a skeleton crew managing the office. It truly was an accident they wanted the public to know. But they dont understand why as of yet this happened but have notified their leadership of the problem.

With the christian base split geographically across the country the longer this brews the worse of a problem it could be.

With so much distrust by the public on polls, electioneering even by the media to get a certain groups "right" candidate into washington, that turns out to be the nations worst nightmare, this is not sitting well with the groups who already say as conservatives they feel betrayed.

The question is how long will they FRC and Tony Perkins sit on these facts?

What benefit does it have not immediately notify the public that a revote is needed.

Is the FRC gaining something or their leadership by letting these false advertising results stay in the media for a while?

It is well known that Romney has strong problems because of his mormon faith with the base. Huckabee is hated and distrusted by value voters who faught day and night for what they viewed as supported overthrow of our nation and values under the guise of the McCain/Kennedy/Bush illegal immigration and amnesty bills passage. Huckabee at the time was a STRONG supporter of the bill and has been back tracking ever since the public outcry. He was an even stronger fighter for the Kennedy/Bush/Mccain immigration creed in Arkansas. He faught against laws willing to slander other christians, supported his biggest campaign sponsor tyson foods and the hispanic lobbist groups and mexico foothold in arkansas. He even went so far as to call faithful representatives racists and try whatever opportunistic tacticts he felt he could get away with. Too bad for Huckabee.

Will the FRC action group chance dividing and fracturing the Christian base by delaying on notifying the public that their Polls were broken?

Will they do the right thing and redo the online polls to be fair to all those that wanted to vote in the value voters debate?

29

Social "conservatives" are not conservatives, they are socialists, in that they push for the most intrusive government intervention into the lives of individuals. Only a socialist would vote for laws that govern what precise sexual positions are permitted between married couples, as is done with the sodomy legislation so many of these socialists favor.

Whats happened to the GOP over the recent years has not been a process of becoming MORE conservative, but rather less. Its become radicalized by groups that are to the Right what Code Pink is to the Left.

I find it amusing that the concerns advertised by these groups are "about marriage". When judging by the actual actions they have supported and continue to support toward this supposed goal most clearly fall under the slogan of "beat up the faggots" figuratively or literally. Whether its voting for "Defense of Marriage" acts that do nothing of the sort or working against discrimination protection in the workplace or even hate crimes legislation, which, contrary to the "spin", prosecute acts of violence, not speech.

The foundations of these "Social Conservatives" are based on fear and lies. As a house, it cannot stand. Will they take Christianity down with them? Or have they already?

30

You describe Instapundit as a "radical libertarian"? Do you read his blog regularly? Yes, he has libertarian leanings, but he's hardly a radical libertarian. For example, he shows no sign of thinking that the police, fire department and national defense should be privatized.

Anyone who thinks tax reduction is essential while abortion and marriage are secondary or unimportant cannot rightly be considered to be "conservative", at least not by the standards of the American conservative tradition.

Um. I don't think that either of these issues were hot topics before Roe v. Wade and the later rise of the gay rights movement. What the social conservative have to realize is that the libertarian leaning wing of the party holds the balance in many states. Like the social conservatives, if they stay home, the Democrats win. (There are multiple analyses that indicate that they were decisive in several of the Senate races in the last go-round.) If the "socons" want to enact their agenda, it's gonna be state by state, winning state legislatures to pass local laws, and they won't win all the states. There is no way many of the constitutional amendments they want will be adopted, as the "blue" states will block them. The best you can hope for is to get a Supreme Court that throws these issues back to the states. And you'll have to live with gay marriage and liberal abortion laws in California and Massachusetts. (Federalism, you know, what the Framers intended.)

Oh, and some good news in one area - the science on stem cells seems to be heading toward using stem cells existing in adults - there is evidence they (and skin cells) can be made pluripotent, the property that makes fetal cells of interest to researchers.

31

Very powerful analysis, Joe.

I understand what you mean about Reynolds being a 'radical' in regards to his Kurzweil enthusiasms. He's a gentleman, most of the time (and more than almost anyone else), but yeah, the Singulatarians are a bit wild. And I should know, I was looking into them waaaaay before they became cool.

As to the Republicans there are three groups: The RINOs who are in charge, the Libertarians who provide some intellectual clarity and mental firepower, and the Social Conservatives.

Once upon a time, the RINOs were by themselves, and the Tarians fumed. And the RINOs lost, and lost, and lost. Thats what they do. They also play really good golf. Then the Socons came on the scene, and the Republicans started winning. The dark night of fascism kept dropping toward America, but somehow landing in the more secular Europe as the Conservative Revolution ebbed onward. The Tarians also gathered strength, partially because the Socons broke the RINOs deathgrip on power a bit.

Freedom, morality, and prosperity kept advancing as Socons advanced. Tarians offered a lot of help too, but despite the hard glitter of their brilliance, they are only about 2% of the nation. There are more people who believe that Roswell Aliens run the government than their are real libetarians.

Its sad. Mimes a tear.

There are more full blown genuine 'statists' who long to institute 1984 probably than tarians.

But they do punch above their weight which is one reason we bother to talk to them. The other reason is of course, is that a whole lot of their ideas we agree with.

But Joe is right.

The tarians see themselves as an intellectual elite. Perhaps they are. I think they are really good at manipulating their too simple to handle reality model, but then I don't have much of a model. Instead I have a stack of things that kinda work. So maybe I shouldn't scorn people who have a Big, err Small Theory.

But the tarians are not where the People are. You want the Conservatives, you have to provide Conservatism to them.

Glenn's a nice guy. He's a gentleman, and in today's world of crude jerks that really means something. We certainly shouldn't spit on him, and we should offer our friendship. But we should always remember that he's not a conservative.

I hope Joe's essay opens ten thousand of the right eyes to reality.

32

"The stark contrast between the heartland conservatives and the DC-centric bloggers became apparent in the panel discussion I moderated on Political Blogging. Although most of the panel members could be classified as moderately social conservative, few of them focus primarily on social conservative issues."

Very interesting post, Joe. I have had some similar thoughts in the past on the subject of whether the center-right blogosphere is reflective of the conservative movement as a whole.

My initial conclusion (although difficult to prove) is that bloggers tend to be younger and fall into the post-Baby Boomer generations (X,Y, and/or Millennial). Generally speaking, these emerging generations tend to be more liberal/moderate on social issues and focus on economic conservatism to the point of becoming largely libertarian. As such, the younger bloggers tend to reflect this fact of my generation. As a young social conservative, I have found it difficult to find people my age that blog on social conservative issues. If people have examples/thoughts to the contrary, I'd love to hear them.

33

http://klumnk.cheval-blogs.com >heidi klum naked

34

What about Ron Paul - so few have mentioned him and when he does come up the facts about what he stands for are distorted.

to the commenter that stated that he was afraid of going to war - you need to actually research his views - he is not against "war" he has never said going to war when necessary is bad but that it needs to be declared according to the constitution, which this one that we are currently in was NOT.

he's a champion of the constitution and small government. - Things not covered in the constitution should be decided by the STATE governments/courts NOT the federal government/courts - how much more power would the people have if instead of petitioning the federal government we only had to petition are state and local governments - lots and that is how it was (a very long time ago) and should still be.

He's pro-life, anti IRS/income tax and all the things he says he stands for he has proven with his record in congress. - A politician that actually votes for and stands for what he says he stands for - how refreshing!
Also he has never voted for a congressional pay raise, as a 10-term congressman he is eligible for a cushy government pension but he opted out of it!

He is made fun of and ignored but no matter what he has shown that he can still stand his ground with grace and dignity.

www.RonPaul2008.com