tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9247604.post8570285893269930036..comments2023-08-12T11:48:14.237-04:00Comments on Insomnious Politico: StrategeryJasMarshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16354457022511599465noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9247604.post-41502426860237428202008-01-22T15:30:00.000-05:002008-01-22T15:30:00.000-05:00That's high praise, thanks.Let's just hope that th...That's high praise, thanks.<BR/><BR/>Let's just hope that the non-McCain vote isn't divided in so many ways as to be without effect. At this point, Fred Thompson has got to bow out but even that may not be enough since some of his voters may go back to the Huckster. <BR/><BR/>Having McCain as a front runner is almost like having a Democrat in the Republican primary. He has to be defeated before we even begin to settle on a serious nominee. But in order to do that, conservatives may have to agree on a single alternative who can get enough votes to really trounce McCain. <BR/><BR/>Which means that I'm having very anti-New York feelings in the next couple of weeks. For reasons of strategy I'm routing against Rudy, and for reasons of homer-ism I'm most certainly routing against The Giants. <BR/><BR/>I'm feeling very Boston as usual, Go Mitt, Go Pats!JasMarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354457022511599465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9247604.post-19598743817228675932008-01-22T02:32:00.000-05:002008-01-22T02:32:00.000-05:00Jaz, I'm cool with Romney or Giuliani.I met Mitt a...Jaz, <BR/><BR/>I'm cool with Romney or Giuliani.<BR/><BR/>I met Mitt about a year ago here in Southern California and he struck me as perfectly capable and competent. With his CEO background, he'd be great.<BR/><BR/>Currently, I'm a Rudy guy. We'll have to wait and see what happens on 01.29 in Florida.<BR/><BR/>Jaz, you've now officially surpassed me as the world's best blogger.<BR/><BR/>Love you, Man.<BR/><BR/>Go Giants.Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02772870279966927802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9247604.post-32966683402912064792008-01-21T10:12:00.000-05:002008-01-21T10:12:00.000-05:00The opposite of Darwinism isn’t necessarily Creati...The opposite of Darwinism isn’t necessarily Creationism. Intelligent Design is a manifestly more reasonable theory than Darwinism. The Discovery Institute has done wonderful research on the subject, which I strongly recommend.<BR/><BR/>If Huck is the eventual nominee, and there’s no third party candidate, I may not vote. I know THAT is apostasy in Republican circles, but I’m more conservative than Republican; if the GOP abandoned conservatism, I’d no longer see that as my party affiliation. And I think a Huckabee nomination is pretty darn close to abandoning conservatism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9247604.post-73710012370074913672008-01-21T10:11:00.000-05:002008-01-21T10:11:00.000-05:00Michael,I'm glad that you are a fellow Romney supp...Michael,<BR/><BR/>I'm glad that you are a fellow Romney supporter so right away this is a debate between friends. I agree with your assessment as to why Huckabee might not have even the Republican support required to win a general election. There are possibly dozens of <B><A HREF="http://philosofix.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-dont-like-mike.html" REL="nofollow">reasons</A></B> to be against Huckabee. However, if the general election choice is between Huckabee and say Hillary Clinton, the fiscal conservatives, the border advocates, and the defense hawks may be able to find a way to hold their nose and vote for Huckabee. Because I guarantee that he would pivot and attempt to cater to all three groups and do so with more credibility than his general election opponent. Therefore the question is: what weakness of Huckabee's would the Left use to dismantle his campaign? It is my theory that they will use what is ironically his only strength in the Republican primary, his social conservatism, and turn it into his primary liability in a general election. <BR/><BR/>Here is my explanation. First of all, I never got them memo that the left had a monopoly on believing in science. When you say that Darwinism is the "Left's official Religion" you imply that no Republican believes in the theory of evolution, and by extension in science. You say evolution is a theory, which is of course true. Like all of scientific theory, evolution it is based upon the best available information. If another scientific theory comes along that successfully refutes the theory of evolution based on the facts, than it would become the best available working theory. The point is, believing that the theory of evolution has merit, is believing in science. As in, believing in objective reality, facts, and data. <BR/><BR/>The story of creationism is the alternative to believing in evolution. I would submit, and in fact hope, that most Americans when it comes down to it, even some of the religious, believe in science and factual data as opposed to what is essentially a work of fiction in the 'story' of creationism. And the fact that is a 'story' says it all, one is a theory based upon serious and in depth factual research, and one is a story which requires 'faith' in order to buy into. The advocates of evolution can point to reams of scientific data, while the argument of those advocating creationism amounts to saying, "Just take our word for it."<BR/><BR/>I know that it is an apostasy to have this kind of an opinion in conservative circles, but because I believe in science does not mean I do not respect the religious. I'm not a lefty after all. The social conservatives make up a very important 1/3 of the Reagan coalition, and I'm very much against the Left's desire to remove religion from the public square, from our currency and from our schools. Judeo-Christian philosophy was an important basic building block upon which this great country was built and continues to be a guiding force of principles and strength for our people. <BR/><BR/>However, the other 2/3 of the reagan Coalition, economic and national security, are to me more important than social conservatism on it's own. This is perhaps why Huckabee seems to be almost the inverse of Romney. Those who care about the one and only issue of abortion will vote for Huckabee and those who believe that economic conservatism and national security conservatism are collectively more important than social conservatism on it's own should vote for Romney. <BR/><BR/>Of course, Romney is in reality a strong social conservative. One need look no further than his family life and the high ethical standards in which he conducts himself and his affairs. Unfortunately, it may have been a mistake for the Romney campaign to have emphasized his social conservative credentials first and wait until Michigan to mention that Romney's true strength lies in the realm of economic conservatism. <BR/><BR/>This is a side bar, but it's important to understand why social conservatives in some states mistakenly believe that Romney is not one of them. The explanation is as follows. The Romney campaign, mistakenly perhaps, initially sold Romney as a social conservative. After all, when all is said and done Romney <I>is</I> a social conservative. But because the voting public perceived that the timing was suspect going into the evangelical state of Iowa, they assumed that somehow no, Romney is no social conservative. The voters smelled a rat, but the rat was not that Romney is not a social conservative, the rat was a cynical campaign decision to highlight, and place too much emphasis on, Romney’s somewhat shaky perhaps, social conservative credentials. This mess has resulted in the tagging of Romney as flip flopper, a charge the McCain campaign has been peddling from day one and that the liberal media fans the flames of because they ultimately are afraid of the strength of Romney ticket against whatever hack their team ends up trotting out.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps now the campaign will begin to sell Romney as the ‘economy guy’ but I can see why they didn’t do so initially. To sell Romney as a one-dimensional economy expert is to drastically undersell him. The Romney campaign correctly imagined that their guy was collectively stronger in all three parts of the Reagan coalition than any other single candidate. Somewhere along the way John McCain and Mike Huckabee, who really are one-dimensional, have managed to trick enough voters into thinking that they are the strongest Republican candidates. This trend must be reversed. And the fact that Independents and Democrats are essentially polluting the <I>Republican</I> primary process by voting for McCain is not helping. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately I agree with your final statement, Michael. Rich Lowry, <B><A HREF="http://philosofix.blogspot.com/2008/01/manifestly-best-candidate_17.html" REL="nofollow">Ann Coulter</A></B> and probably Rush Limbaugh agree with us.JasMarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354457022511599465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9247604.post-44585188893126956652008-01-21T10:07:00.000-05:002008-01-21T10:07:00.000-05:00I’m with Leslie. Kass is one guy, entitled to his ...I’m with Leslie. Kass is one guy, entitled to his opinion, even if it’s wrong. I too am a Romney supporter; I could also vote for Fred. Beyond that…<BR/><BR/>You said something interesting:<BR/><BR/>“My rationale is simple; if Huckabee wins the nomination, he will certainly lose the general election almost solely because he does not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. I simply don’t believe that Americans, in this day and age, would elect such a blatant enemy of science and scientific advancement.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t understand this comment. While there are numerous reasons to oppose Huckabee, that he doesn’t suscribe to the Left’s official religion, Darwinism, isn’t one of them. It is a theory, remains unproven, and relies on the same principles as any organized religion. The reason that he’d lose in the general has more to do with the fact that he’d fail to energize fiscal conservatives, border advocates, and defense hawks. Beyond his narrow appeal to evangelicals, his support is thin to non-existent.<BR/><BR/>Numerous conservative pundits have catalogued the media’s infatuation with Huckabee, a fawning that is based on the fact that Huckabee is either a “compassionate conservative” (a big-government republican) or a lightweight that they’d have no problem with. Or, horrifyingly possible, both.<BR/><BR/>Either option isn’t very good.<BR/><BR/>You’re right about this: we’ve got to put the best conservative out there and let the chips fall where they may.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9247604.post-55704755499642661712008-01-19T12:49:00.000-05:002008-01-19T12:49:00.000-05:00“Don’t they want to win the White House?”Yes, of c...“Don’t they want to win the White House?”<BR/><BR/>Yes, of course, conservatives want to win the White House. Nominating a non-conservative, like John McCain, isn’t really a good strategery for pursuing that goal.<BR/><BR/>What conservatives don’t want is to deliver the White House to a non-conservative Republican–again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9247604.post-64182582508687921242008-01-19T12:19:00.000-05:002008-01-19T12:19:00.000-05:00Amen to that. I think Fred is better than Romney,...Amen to that. I think Fred is better than Romney, but Romney seems more level headed than McCain. And I am wondering why the MSM is trying to pick the Republican nominee. Isn't it the Republican rank and file that is supposed to vote for their nominee? I really hate that in most Primaries you can vote in either the Democrat or Republican Primaries. Shouldn't the Republicans vote in the Republican primary?<BR/><BR/>Also I agree with you on Obama, even though I have no idea really what he is for other than 'Change" and "Hope", but at least he is not from the old school of politics. If Hillary is the nominee look for one of the dirtiest campaigns for the President ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com