1

So the first step in saving conservatism is to support the leftward shift of the Republican party?

2

Joe:

Your stance in support of John McCain seems to be in direct contradiction to your rejection of Rudy Guiliani. I remember being angry at you because you were willing to let anyone win rather than vote for Rudy. Is this one of those times when you were confident in your opinion--but wrong?

I suspect there's no way for you to explain this without the one-legged stool of abortion.

3

Rush Limbaugh, just this morning, said in effect, "Don't blame us Conservative talkers if Hillary wins. Blame those leftward-leaning Republicans who've gotten us into this mess."

Sounds good, but in reality it's as if say, Romney, started a Perot-like third party push, and blew a bunch of money to drain away Republican votes, and then said, "Don't blame me if the Dems win, it's those left-leaning Republicans that "forced" me to run a third party."

This is what led to Clinton the 1st's win in 1992.

Rush is not only foolish in his past statements that it "doesn't much matter, McCain or Hillary", but he would be even more foolish to not push McCain for all he is worth.

Okay, he fought his Movement Conservative fight. Amen to it.

But now it's Hillary/Obama (give in to Islamofascism, get radically leftwing judges, fight for abortion, tax and spend as much as humanly possible, etc.) versus McCain (keep fighting Islamofascism, be compelled to get rightwing judges or risk enormous Conservative backlash, continue his anti-abortion stand, and hopefully follow his less-tax and less-spend promises...admittedly iffy, but not the sure opposite of Hillary).

Get real, Movement Conservatives, or you may as well "write in" Ronald Reagan on your ballot.

4

"But if, like me, you believe that conservatism is more important than Republicanism, then we must unite--tentatively and with trepidation--behind the party's nominee."

What an idiot. How does voting for Liberal Republicans help conservatives regain control of the GOP? You sound like a moby.

5

Well said Terry Rayburn. Just one question. Were you also one who said no way would you ever vote for Rudy Guiliani? I think I'll check you website.

6

McCain is Hillary in trousers and with a military record. I'll vote Democrat before I vote for McCain.

How does ratifying the parties shift to the left help us to make it more conservative? That part is never explained. In 2012 I suppose we'll be told we have to support Giulaini or Specter, "in the best interests of conservatism."

You people are nuts, assuming you even believe the arguments you are making.

7

Jarick So the first step in saving conservatism is to support the leftward shift of the Republican party?

Which would you rather have: the leftward shift of the GOP or the leftward shift of America? For me, the country takes priority over the party.

JD Your stance in support of John McCain seems to be in direct contradiction to your rejection of Rudy Guiliani.

Not at all. Electing Giuliani would have signaled a shift in the Republican Party away from respect for human dignity--an essential core conservative principle. McCain is simply a moderately conservative Senator who will be less conservative than we would like. He may threaten the GOP, but he does not directly threaten the conservative movement.

James McCain is Hillary in trousers and with a military record. I'll vote Democrat before I vote for McCain.

This is a discussion for thoughtful people, James. Anyone who thinks John McCain is no different from Hillary Clinton obviously doesn't have the intellectual ability to keep up so maybe you should just sit this one out.

8

John McCain will be the GOP nominee -- Romney has suspended his campaign and Huckabee has no chance to win the delegates he needs. Talk of a brokered convention is an intriguing fantasy but it won't happen. Come November, McCain will be the Republican nominee.

I really hope you're wrong Joe. But in [human] logic and in probability, you are likely right. This is really sucky bad news for this Christian conservative who happens to be a registered Republican because there's no viable alternative.

I really hope McCain doesn't pick Huck to be VP. And if McCain offers the VP seat to Huck, I hope Huck politely declines.

I'll vote for the GOP nominee because I've always maintained that a DEM would be a disaster.

P.S. Since Joe is being realistic in his analysis, let me also be realistic in my analysis that McCain will lose to either Hillary or Obama in the general election. I don't trust the polls that say McCain is competitive with Hillary or Obama. I think either one of them will beat McCain easily.

As I said on Joe's Super Tuesday thread, I think the best GOP ticket is Huck/Condi Rice.

9

Joe, I completely agree with you. I was once a liberal Democrat and have never understood what appears to be a sort of conservative culture that just can't see themselves not being in the drivers seat.

The Lord does not call us to be Republican or Democrat...He calls us to be faithful. We are also charged to be wise and innocent. So I agree with you that the wise thing to do would be to work with the Republicans to stop the bleeding because we have a place at the table there. At the same time we must be clear, where we differ even among our own conservative Republican friends.

Our culture is no longer operating from a Christian Worldview first. It operates from a secular humanist view or a cultural Christianity that compensates for secular humanism. We will make a real difference once we accept our true environment for what it is, not what we want it to be.

10

Truth As I said on Joe's Super Tuesday thread, I think the best GOP ticket is Huck/Condi Rice.

That would never happen. Huckabee wouldn't pick someone who is pro-choice as his VP.

11

"give in to Islamofascism, get radically leftwing judges, fight for abortion, tax and spend as much as humanly possible, etc"

Hhahahahahha. Light the strawman's match! Joe talks about civil discourse in his post, as if that's possible for a huge swath of movement conservatism. Then terry comes along to show Joe just how naïve he really is.

I'm sure Democrats will be voting in droves to give in to islamofascism this fall--that's what we want because we absolutely hate America. Who could possibly think anything else?

But you won't have to worry about leftwing judges. In Clinton's time, radical, leftwing, liberal judges (add your choice of venomous epithet) were repeatedly blocked by Orrin Hatch and his band of brothers who, incidentally, got a mild case of amnesia when he demanded up or down votes on Bush's nominees. Couldn't recall obstructing any of Clinton's nominees.

Even in the minority, the standard bearers of personal integrity will find a way to block nominees they find repugnant. And they won't even use those hated "litmus tests" that Dems use. they'll just call it something else. You have no worries on that score.

As for "fighting for" abortions, read two policy papers and call me back in the morning.

Of course no one wants to tax and spend more than Democrats, not even when they balance their budgets (a problem, it seems, for the current Admninstration. At least they got the spend part right.)

The sad thing about folks like you is that it's always black and white in your world. You might want to add some color and maybe a few shades of gray.

12

Joe Carter: Which would you rather have: the leftward shift of the GOP or the leftward shift of America? For me, the country takes priority over the party

I would like power to shift back to the states, the federal government to decrease in size and presence, and conservative values to guide us.

Your thinking is short-term, in my opinion. If our goals are to decrease the size and presence of government and support conservative values, we need to support and elect those who would give us progress in that direction, not in the opposite direction.

Perhaps short-term, McCain would be more "conservative" than Hillary, but in the long-term, the left would have successfully shifted our window of thought to the left, and they would continue nibbling at the edges.

In order to achieve our goals, we must make progress in that direction, not slowly drift further away from them. And that is why I won't support another moderate big government Republican.

13

To some folks, abortion is the only issue they will go to the stake for on behalf of conservatism. To others, limited government, a strong foreign policy, and secured borders are also 'stake' issues, in addition to abortion.

These are matters of personal opinion. We're not going to come to agreement over which issues are REALLY worth fighting for or sacrificing, and which ones aren't. I do think that classically, most conservatives have been social-, fiscal-, AND defense-oriented in their position.

14

Huckabee wouldn't pick someone who is pro-choice as his VP.

Thanks for the link Joe. Condi's responses weren't staunchly pro-choice. She's kinda doing the political two-step hot potato dance on the top of the fence.

I don't think it knocks her out of the running. Another two reasons why I like her that I didn't mention before is that:

(1) She'll hold her own in the debates.

(2) She has Washington beltway experience to complement Huck's Arkansas state governorship experience.

------

I know a brokered convention is a long-shot fantasy, but what if a large majority of Romney supporters backed Huck because they disliked McCain more? And if Ron Paul and his supporters did the same thing? It might just be enough to deny McCain from winning the 1191 delegates he needs.

Your next question to me should be: What's better: A brokered convention or to have McCain lock up the GOP nomination early enough to start extending olive branches and suturing up the deep fractures extant?

My answer: I'd still rather have a brokered convention and have an outside possibility of Huckabee winning the GOP nomination.

Pax in Christ alone.

15

Jarick Your thinking is short-term, in my opinion. If our goals are to decrease the size and presence of government and support conservative values, we need to support and elect those who would give us progress in that direction, not in the opposite direction.

I address this point in more detail in the later posts in this series. But for now let me say that I disagree, and think that supporting McCain is in our long-term interest.

We conservatives forget that just because we help elect the guy doesn't mean we have to agree with him for the next four years (that was the mistake we made with Bush). I don’t understand why conservatives think that they can oppose President Clinton but not a President McCain. You elect the guy and then fight him on every issue. Will we lose some? Sure. But in the long run we'll win more than if a Democrat is in office.

We can rebuild the movement under a moderate Republican just as we could under a moderate Democrat -- and we don’t have to sacrifice Supreme Court nominations in the process.

16

Hey Joe, take a look at this and tell me what you think:

"McCain would need 471 of those to equal the magic number of 1191. 963-471 = 492. So if Huck can get 493 and leave McCain with 470 (or anything less!), it goes to a brokered convention.

So the question is, can the conservatives who hate McCain, line up behind Huckabee and basically force a 51/49 split of the remaining delegates? The does not sound out of the realm of possibility to me!"

from: http://voteforhuckabee.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-delegate-math-huck-can-stop-mccain.html

Stand Firm and Fight the Good Fight Joe! The Fat Lady's warming up, but as Yogi Berra said, it ain't over til it's over!

17

But now it's Hillary/Obama (give in to Islamofascism...)

Yeah, because liberals like me have EXACTLY THE SAME GOALS as the Islamofascists: punish gays for being gay, strip women of all human rights, end religious freedom once and for all, force everyone to embrace one religion whether they believe it or not, distort science to fit established religious doctrine...oh, wait, those are Christian-Right goals, not liberal goals. Who's "giving in to Islamofascism" again?

18

Appropriately named Raging Bee writes: "Yeah, because liberals like me have EXACTLY THE SAME GOALS as the Islamofascists: punish gays for being gay, strip women of all human rights, end religious freedom once and for all, force everyone to embrace one religion whether they believe it or not, distort science to fit established religious doctrine...oh, wait, those are Christian-Right goals, not liberal goals."

I'm alternating between loving this post and being utterly astounded by it.

Raging Bee, you've been hideously brainwashed (perhaps even doing so out of your own volition!) and indoctrinated by liberal fundamentalists to believe in a false caricature of Bible-believing Christians.

I love your post because it provides prima facie evidence that some/many liberals really do hold to silly strawman caricatures of Christians and ACTUALLY believe them.

I'm astounded by your post because it shows such a remarkably deep display of unintelligence. I didn't realize how tight the grip was by liberal fundamentalists to have their followers be so unthinking.

19

Truth Unites... and Divides,

You're wasting your time with Raging Bee. Pretty soon he'll call you a liar as he always does to those he disagrees with. He comes here with hate in his heart and only seeks to mock and belittle. He is best ignored. We should, however, pray for him and ask God to show him the truth of salvation through Jesus Christ. We can only love someone like Raging Bee into the kingdom, not argue him into it.

20

Thanks for the cautionary note Brian Finlayson. I'm relatively new to this blog.

-----------

Question: What is the emotional, psychological, and mental state of the Romney supporters?

Are they taking things in stride and making a positive adjustment to this news? Or are they in shell-shock? And if they're in shell-shock, how much time is usually needed for a reasonable recovery?

I'm asking because I'd like to know when they'll be able to psychologically process that their two real and viable options at this point are McCain and Huckabee. And are they going to support Huckabee or are they going to support McCain as the GOP nominee?

Personally, I hope they would support Huckabee, but that's up to them. IMHO, I think McCain has been far more insulting and derisive towards Romney than any other GOP candidate.

Anyways, I hope they're taking the news of Romney's suspension of his campaign in a healthy manner, and looking forward to how they want to vote to help the GOP and to help the country.

Because if they still vote for Romney in the remaining GOP primaries, then it's helpful for them to realize that...

A vote for Romney is a vote for McCain.

21

To Truth Unites... and Divides

There is a big problem with that scenario. There is Romney's delegates in play. If McCain has a decent Tuesday he very close to the magic number.

Huckabee is not going to win Guam, Pureto Rico, for that matter American Samoa or the VIrgins Islands. That is 44 delegate right there.

McCain then can win most likely by just showing up. IF he does not want to spend millions he tells Romneyy give me your delgates and you are VP and he is there

Huckabee needs to WIN Louisiana(no sure thing), Kansas(no sure thing) and then win Virgina( very hard). IF he doesnt it is pretty much over.All these will be occuring over the next 5 days!!!

MIke can fight on but if he forces McCain to spend millions on the heavy media states of Ohio and Texas rather than saving it for the general that will be remembered a long time by a lot of people and not in a good way.

I am still working for Mike but it is put up or shut up time again. If we had won Missouri it would not be so dire. However losing Missouri and the true size of McCain vicotry in Claifornia have made things problematic.

Most of the states that are good for us are at the end of the process not coming next. That is just a realty we have to face

22

I might be the only one, but I read (in the context of liberals like Obama and Hillary) "give in to Islamofascism" as "do nothing about terrorism and effectively surrender to Islamofascists who want to destroy the American way of life." I don't really see how the interpretations given are all that charitable. (Disclaimer: I do not endorse the preceding interpretation.)

23

...indoctrinated by liberal fundamentalists to believe in a false caricature of Bible-believing Christians.

No, it's not a false caracature of Bible-believing Christians; it's a true picture of bigots, charlatans and con-artists who pretend to be Bible-believers (and bring shame and disgrace on them) while flatly disregarding the actual teachings of Christ and using the Bible only as a prop and a shield for hatreds and self-serving agendas that have absolutely nothing to do with any decent God's will toward Man.

24

I am still working for Mike but it is put up or shut up time again. If we had won Missouri it would not be so dire.

JH, you have my immense gratitude and appreciation. And I'm sure that Mike Huckabee is deeply thankful for your support as well.

It ain't over until the white towel's thrown into the ring or until there's an official TKO by McCain from having won the requisite number of candidates. Keep serving and keep praying. The Lord has delivered much bigger miracles before.

Pax in Christ alone.

25

Raging Bee,

What you wrote is no different than if you had charcterized all Muslims as terrorists, all jews as money grubbing, or all blacks as criminals. The only bigot is you, sir. For someone who probably considers himself enlightened and tolerant, you are exhibiting neither trait.

26

What you wrote is no different than if you had charcterized all Muslims as terrorists...

Um...actually, it is kinda different. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

27

"Wake up to the voter based reality"--i.e., walk by sight...uh, no. Huckabee's a great candidate. I'll be prayerfully faithful in obeying my scripture-informed conscience and leave the results to God.

28

Raging Bee,

Maybe I'm not very smart, but I fail to see the difference between your rank bigotry about Christians and the worst sorts of generalizations made by racists of all stripes. Please explain how your not very nuanced characterization of bible-believing Christians as bigots, con-artists and charlatans is different?

29

Maybe I'm not very smart, but I fail to see the difference between your rank bigotry about Christians and the worst sorts of generalizations made by racists of all stripes.

No, you're not very smart. I explicitly -- and repeatedly, and in plain English -- acknowledged that the bigots, con-artists and charlatans I condemned were NOT representative of Christians as a whole. Go back and reread the bit where I referred to "bigots, charlatans and con-artists who pretend to be Bible-believers (and bring shame and disgrace on them)." Is it any clearer now?

30

Raging Bee,

Who are representative of Christians as a whole then?

31

There are so many diverse denominations and sects within Christianity that no one can really claim to "represent Christians as a whole." I would tend to listen more to those who actually understand and obey the teachings of Christ, and whose actual works and sacrifices indicate an enlightened and trustworthy spirit.

32

Raging Bee,

Do you have anyone in mind that fits your definition? Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Jim Eliot, NT Wright, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, CS Lewis, organizations like World Vision and Compassion International. Certainly you'd agree these are the non-bigoted, non-charlatan Christ followers in possession of an enlightened and trustworthy spirit.

33

I would tend to listen more to those who actually understand and obey the teachings of Christ,

And Raging Bee is the arbiter of who actually understands and obeys the teachings of Christ, eh? Is that in the real world, or the world of Raging Bee? Admit it, you believe Christ was another incarnation of Buddha.

34

And Raging Bee is the arbiter of who actually understands and obeys the teachings of Christ, eh?

Yeah, me and a few zillion other people who can read what Christ said, and compare that to how certain people who call themselves Christians are observed to behave.

35

I think that you have left out the most important thing necessary to rejuvenate the conservative right, and it's the hardest. What the conservative right needs to do is to return to the few fundamental conservative princples that held it together, and stop making huge laundry lists of specific conclusions derived from those principles into purity tests.

Are there pro-choice conservatives? Yes, of course. In fact, there are good theological reasons for a Christian, even a conservative evangelical Christian, to be pro-choice.

Are there non-Christian conservatives? Yes, of course. In fact there are stridenly antiChristian conservatives.

Is it possible to be a conservative and believe that draconian immigration laws are not the best way to achieve security? Yes, of course.

Is it possible to be a conservative and believe that the principle of free speech trumps the idea that we should protect everybody from sinful images and speech? Yes, of course.

Is it possible to be a conservative and believe that capital punishment is an abomination before God? Yes, of course.

When the "real" conservative pundits create these purity tests, they should not be surprised that the number of "real" conservatives is very small. They have redefined conservatism in such exclusionary terms that *their* conservatism is doomed to meaningless minority status. And the McCain victory is the rest of us telling them that's where they are headed. The conservative movement *can* regain ascendency, as you write, but only if it becomes the kind of conservatism that it once was. Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, et al. claim the Reagan mantle, but they don't have it at all. They have merely fashioned a rather shoddy straightjacket and planted his image on the collar.

36

When 70% of the nation supports serious illegal immigration restrictions, and conservative principle supports it as well, and the GOP establishment is trying to push down the throat of conservatives John McCain, then we have a problem....with the GOP.

Conservatism with a smile wins.

RINOism loses.

Of course, we could be all 'big tent' and support the thirty percent in the minority. Now, I'm for a big tent, but some bridges are too far. And some bridges are too nowhwhere. And supporting Abortion, supporting Amnesty, supporting anti-Christianity is a bad idea electorally.

Just to be pragmatic.

The RINO's: Abortion, Amnesty, and Anti-values.

Just to be clear, you can be a conservative, and support Amnesty. Its just that you're probably conservative on other issues. A pro-Amnesty position is unlikely to be conservative. But everyone makes mistakes, and we shouldn't kick someone out for one or two because we are big tenters.

37

"The RINO's: Abortion, Amnesty, and Anti-values."

And the "pure" conservatives: theocracy, blind xenophobia, and unthinking catcphrases, eh?

Sorry, I'm afraid that if you want to regain control of either the Republican party *or* the US government, you will have to go beyond simple sloganeering.

But you illustrate my point very well. Let's look at your claim of "Amnesty."

The *conservative* position, I'll maintain, has *nothing* to do with "amnesty" -- pro or con -- directly. It has to do with a certain belief about US sovereignty and the protection of our country from attacks on that sovereignty.

In spite of the hysterics of the "pure" conservatives, John McCain is very conservative when it comes to this. The difference is in how he and you think about what is the best way to achieve the same result. And that's the problem of the petulant conservatives -- they have lost touch with the basic principles so much that they think that disagreeing with their one particular approach to a problem is the same as being opposed to any solution. That's not the case.

You are making exactly the same mistake that the lefties make regarding school vouchers. *Both* the folk on the left who support conventional public education *and* those on the right who support more competitive solutions want better education. However, instead of recognizing that commonality, the lefties claim that people who support school vouchers don't want good education for the poor. Because they "know" that the "only" solution is more public financing of conventional public education, then it must follow that anybody who supports vouchers has to be anti-poor and racist and doesn't want decent education for everybody.

You and the other people playing the RINO game are no different. Simply because others think there are other ways to accomplish the *same* goal you want to accomplish, you claim that they don't want to accomplish the goal at all, and thus are not "real" conservatives.

The funniest thing about this is that you folk have gone so far in mistaking specific actions for basic principles that you actually support a hard-core liberal like Huckabee simply because he wears his faith on his sleeve. If you look closely at his policies, he is another Jimmy Carter. And if you think *that* is "conservative," you are sadly mistaken.

And the rest of the party knows it. *That's* why you've lost control of the party. It is not the Republican party that has lost its way. It's you. And you'll never get it back as long as you think that being anti-"Amnesty" is a basic conservative principle.

38

WO:
In spite of the hysterics of the "pure" conservatives, John McCain is very conservative when it comes to this.

Actually, no he doesn't. The problem with the McCain-Bush-Kennedy plan was that it was pretty much a repeat of the disaster that was the 80's immigration fix. We ended up with a lot of new citizens, a lot more illegals, and no serious enforcement. Had this been the first time this was proposed and the 80's never happened, sure it makes sense. However, looking at past results, it was going to be a repeat.

And that's the problem of the petulant conservatives -- they have lost touch with the basic principles so much that they think that disagreeing with their one particular approach to a problem is the same as being opposed to any solution.

McCain was the one saying the people who disagreed with him on this issue were bigots, xenophobes, etc. Sometimes there has to be only one approach and denying that creates the false dichotomy of "if you don't believe there are multiple options, you're petulant." The government has failed to adequately control immigration for 25+ years. Before doing anything else, they have to control the border and enforce the law. Then we can discuss what to do with the +20 million illegals. Also remember that this entire plan was hatched by the administration with a handful of senators. There were no committee hearings or anything like a public debate. When you try to do something in secret and then ramrod it through, don't expect the other side just to talk nice.

Simply because others think there are other ways to accomplish the *same* goal you want to accomplish, you claim that they don't want to accomplish the goal at all, and thus are not "real" conservatives.

First, your logic is flawed. Are liberals who have the same goal of improving education now conservative because they have the same goals as conservatives? The means of achieving a goal relates to your principles. You can't divorce them from the goal. If two people agree that everyone should have a job and one says let the market create jobs and the other says the government should create jobs for everyone, are they both conservatives?

If you look closely at his policies, he is another Jimmy Carter. And if you think *that* is "conservative," you are sadly mistaken.

I don't support Huckabee but this is funny. If he supports the same goals as conservatives, how can his policies be liberal? You're playing the RINO game yourself.

And you'll never get it back as long as you think that being anti-"Amnesty" is a basic conservative principle.

No the principle is that the law matters and that continuously ignoring the law and giving Get Out of Jail Free cards isn't good for the country or a conservative policy.

39

Yeah, me and a few zillion other people who can read what Christ said, and compare that to how certain people who call themselves Christians are observed to behave.

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot like what Evangelicals say... except you have declared you aren't an Evangelical, and I doubt there are a few zillion in your crowd. The only conclusion I can come to is that your claim is demagoguery.

40

"The problem with the McCain-Bush-Kennedy plan was that it was pretty much a repeat of the disaster that was the 80's immigration fix."

You mean that disaster we got from Reagan? Well, I guess *he* wasn't a "conservative," then, eh? Was Reagan another RINO to you?

You still don't get it. You are arguing *implementation* not *principle.* And as long as you conflate the two, you will never become a majority again.

"McCain was the one saying the people who disagreed with him on this issue were bigots, xenophobes, etc."

Ahem. You can ignore the ruminations of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. if you want, but it doesn't make them go away. Your pretense that it is *McCain* who is the one primarily playing this game gives you away.

"First, your logic is flawed."

No, you miss my point. The point is that liberals are wrong when they complain that people who disagree on specific implementations means that they do not want to achieve the same goal. And when you say the same thing about conservatives who share goals with you but support other implementations, you are making the same mistake.

"If he supports the same goals as conservatives, how can his policies be liberal?"

Because, like most real people, he doesn't pass your purity test. In some things he is conservative, and in others he is not. But, in terms of political philosophy rather than specific issues, he *is* mostly liberal. And, in fact, with the exception of some specific faith-based issues and the second amendment, he's pretty much down the liberal line. Are you really claiming he's a "small government" New Federalist? Hardly. Are you really claiming that he opposes broad sweeping intrusive government policies? Hardly. Are you really claiming that he does not want to impose federal morality legislation? I hate to tell you this, but he's no conservative. He's a good Christian, but he's never been a political conservative, unless you consider Jimmy Carter a conservative.

In fact, that's how Carter became President. He managed to cover his liberal political philosophy with the patina of the social conservatism, and got a ton of crossover votes. We won't be fooled again.

And, no. I'm not playing the RINO game. As a long-time Republican -- since before the Moral Majority tried to hijack the party. And I remember when the Republican Party was a much larger tent based on much more basic principles. Back then we had Rockefeller Republicans and Eisenhower Republicans and Goldwater Republicans. There was room for all.

The idea of RINOs is your construct, not mine, and it is a poison in the party. I discuss that at: this post .

"No the principle is that the law matters and that continuously ignoring the law and giving Get Out of Jail Free cards isn't good for the country or a conservative policy."

Nor is being hypocritical and dishonest about what has been de facto American policy for ten generations. You don't sound conservative when you say such things; you merely sound like the dishonest cop in Casablanca saying "I'm shocked, just shocked that there's gambling going on here." Perhaps it would be better to simply be honest about what we as a nation have been doing instead of pretending that suddenly all these people are "criminals" because they accepted the *real* US policy for what it was. It's not all their fault, and pretending otherwise is simply dishonest.

Personally, I don't think such hypocrisy is a basic conservative principle.

41

Huckabee can win the nomination. Here's how:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SCFrCIt1aas

42

of course hypocrisy is a basic conservative
principle, as is liberlism.
Yet God be true and all men are liars.
There is no biblical virture in conservative
politics. As long as we understand the
futility of the system such discussions are
are a waste of time as politics provides
answers without solutions.
Christ and Christ alone. God allows and has set
up governments that are legitimate in their respect
for God and God's order, not liberal or conservative.