NY-23: The Rubes Are Inside The Beltway, Folks

I want to challenge a paltry bit of growing conventional wisdom, as one of our alleged Inside the Beltway bright lights recently threw Thompson and Huckabee in my face regarding NY-23. He suggested that two nationally known conservatives backed the Conservative Party candidate in that race. Of course, the often duplicitous Huckabee isn't really backing anyone. He's trying to have it both ways, as is his usual MO.

But let's at least look at the facts. Perhaps we can educate these Inside the Beltway types who all too often seem to have little ability to think things out on their own. What they are good at in that regard is convincing themselves that they actually have. They generally repeat either what they've been told, or what they've been paid to repeat. But their vision is frequently far worse than that of an intelligent individual who doesn't play the Beltway charade.

Huckabee’s presidential primary foe, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), has already backed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over GOPer Dede Scozzafava in the race, and now Huckabee’s efforts could bolster Hoffman too.

I won't name him. My goal is not to embarrass someone. It's to get to the meat of what a conservative at least isn't and apply some common sense to our own decision-making, unlike so many Beltway types.

Huckabee is easily dispatched. He is not a conservative. Anyone suggesting that remains blinded by those wonderful crosses they saw dancing across their TV screen in last year's Huckabee campaign ads. Fiscally, he's a populist, at best. And he actually has quite a liberal streak. Distributing income is just as much a desire with Huckabee as it is with the Left. He simply wants to use those tax dollars in a different way. On top of that, he's a Big Government guy. Anyone who thinks that dictating menus and diets has anything to do with conservatism has no idea what it is really about. That, or as I suggested, they are simply being blinded by the Light, as it were. So, enough of that BS. And that leaves us with Fred.

Ah, yes, "Good Old Fred". But what did he actually do in 2008?

What he actually did was jump in the race mostly at the last minute once his old and good friend John McCain who he had previously endorsed was going broke. I would say the best acting job of his career was his pretending he might actually run for President in 2008. But, truth be told, he didn't really pull the role off all that well, as you may rightly recall. What a pathetic and disappointing performance that whole charade turned out to be. But he did keep conservatives from rallying around Romney just long enough to allow his dear old friend John McCain to eventually raise a little bit of cash and basically re-enter the race.

And what did Fred do then? Well, he pulled the curtain back on his not fond of travel traveling show and let us all in on the joke. He dropped out. Well, not exactly. I mean, he did manage to hang around just long enough to attack Romney repeatedly in the debates while consistently giving John McCain all but a complete pass. Wow! What a dedicated conservative Fred Thompson turned out to be. And I won't even get into his having previously pushed campaign finance reform as a Senator right along with John McCain. Eventually, his acting job done, Thompson, that arch conservative, backed McCain, again. It isn't as if he hadn't ever endorsed him before, after all.

But, you pay attention to your betters, folks. Because these Inside the Beltway types, man they have the skinny on everything.

Just one last point. Before you start taking advice from those Inside the Beltway types, make sure you know upon which side their bread is buttered, or who is actually paying them, or what their own personal agendas happen to be. And don't leave out who funds the institutions and magazines some may work for, too. You might just figure out something they don't know.

Based upon my experience down here, it isn't actually hard if you're willing to think for yourself. And before you start taking advice from any of these Beltway types, be sure to look at all the angles the same way so many of our bright lights insight the Beltway seem to do before deciding anything.

You might discover a big surprise - the mopes tend to not be any better at knowing, or predicting much of anything to any degree of accuracy beyond just plain old you and me.

Comments

[BR]

Quote: "But he did keep conservatives from rallying around Romney just long enough to ..."

What conservative would rally around a chameleon like Romney?

[streiff]

lets assume, arguendo, that Huckabee and Thompson are the schlubs you portray them as. Are you saying that their position in NY-23 is not supporting the conservative candidate in the race? Or are you saying that Hoffman's campaign, which as far as I can tell from the campaign finance reports is held together with a combination of spit and duct tape, has hired Huckabee and Thompson to shill for it?

It seems to me that even if your description of Huckabee and Thompson and their motivations is true, it still doesn't answer the question of how the GOP, much less conservatism, gains by foisting Scozzafava off on the electorate when she is running to the left of the Dem in the race.

[Dan Riehl]

Honestly Streiff, I'm not sure of the relevance of your question to the actual post; though I can see how it might be interpreted that way. I didn't mean it as advocating a choice in NY-23. If you think Hoffman is the way to go, more power to you. I said what I've had to say for now on that in a previous post.

The focus of the post is actually about how little stock I put in the Beltway boys and I'm encouraging people to think things through for themselves. Also, obviously, I simply don't trust Huckabee or Thompson as nothing I saw from them in 08 earned it.

Furthermore, as stated, Huckabee is NOT a conservative outside of his social conservatism, or religion shtick. As regards Fred, who knows? He talks a good game but, also as stated, he backed campaign finance reform in spades. So, what those two are doing and why isn't something I'm prepared to accept at face value. And I find it silly that people are suggesting they are truly down for the cause and a sign of how compelling the argument is for Hoffman.

Huckabee wants divide in the GOP because it helps him, still he hasn't actually endorsed. Talk about an Obama-esque move.

But those are different issues than what is the right choice for someone in NY.

[Dan Riehl]

Streiff - what I should also point out is that, Huckabee is a God guy. I have no issue with that, though I don't find him to be a good one. But only that and nothing else is permitting him to claim the mantle of conservative. The religious Right would do well to stop pushing, or perhaps believing that's all it takes to qualify one as conservative.

They did it with Bush and people bought it. I have few issues with Bush, but many cons are upset that he was not in fact a genuine conservative. So, I see no good reason to fall for the same misguded thinking with Huckabee.

[Northern Virginia Patriot]

Agree - The issue is ACORN - We need to hammer any ACORN candidates & the next issue is Pro-life - we need candidates who believe in "life, liberty..." Life is first.

Huck & Thompson are very much the 2nd tier folks you observe - it's interesting this race has put Newt in a new light - and then there is the NRCC.

Nice to know who's who and there's nothing like a clear cut differnces in a real race to sort thru who's who...

[the bishop]

I don't get it Dan, yes I trust the Huck about as far as I could kick him downfield, but he's made the right bet on Hoffman,Huckabee played
the 'Mormon' card on Romney, opening up a century schism in the party. He flanked McCain so that no one on the center right could get traction. Newt, on the other hand. Thompson, had some good moments, yes Politico and Carl Cameron, insinuated that he didn't have the stamina to run a race, look he we ended up with; and who did all the work.

[Kempermanx]

Dan,
You are absolutely correct the Huck is an enviromental quack and god freak. HE is NOT conservative. I met him at a small gathering of conservatives, mostly pro life people, and the Huck is an idiot preacher. He mouths words and knows NOTHING about economics. Give it up, he another slick willie from AK.
Kemp

[megapotamus]

Didn't know about Thompson and McC/Fg and I watch these things fairly closely. Yes, Thompson and the Huck seemed to be tactical players but if it redounded to Romney's detriment the only objection is that it got us McCain who would have done 70% of the calamitous stuff domestically that we have endured and Romney, as far as one can tell from his blandishments, would have been about the same. No one except Ron Paul was against the cascading bailouts, buyouts and giveaways that have brought us to this pass. Oh well. Looks like everyone must feel the sting of Barack's Socialist Mophandle before lessons are learned and I don't see anyone on the national stage saying what needs to be said except Sarah Palin.

[section9]

You know that Rasmussen poll that just came out that gives Huck a monster lead over the Mittens and Sarahcuda?

The one that Allahpundit is flacking over at HA in his life long quest to marginalize Governor Palin?

Let me tell you something. Huck's support in the party is a mile wide and an inch deep. The evangelicals who say they will support the Huckster will move to Sarah in a heartbeat once she starts doing the Reagan thing on the chicken dinner circuit. The Movement Conservatives? The ones who look at budgets? They can't stand Huck. They know he's out for himself.

Now let's take Mittens. Please. Mitt-care. 'Nuff said. It has nothing to do with Mitt's Mormonism. That was always a red herring spread by the libtards and Mitt's people to make Teh Mittens look like a victim. People in the biz know that Mitt is a flipper on conservative issues and that he ran as a pro-choice libtard against Teddy. Then he saddled Massachussettes with ObamaCare Lite. That hollowed out what remained of the Republican Partry in Massachussetts so the Bay State was left to the tender mercy of the Pericles of the Age, Deval Patrick. The only question is whether the centrist Republicans are willing to fall for this complete phony a second time. My bet is that since he lost to a Zombie Candidate in '08, he'll lose to Palin.

Please. It's just a question of how much Sarah really wants it.

[Dan Riehl]

"but he's made the right bet on Hoffman"

He may well have. And if that's what you believe, you should support Hoffman. I haven't made any I love DeDe posts. All I have said since this began is that I don't trust political insiders based upon my experience in DC. They are all too often motivated by things they would just as soon downplay, or have you not know. That's the sum total of my point here. I am not trying to tell people how they should weigh in on the race in question, assuming they do at all. I tried to learn anything substantive about where Hoffman really is on anything and I didn't find it. It certainly isn't on his website, aside from some very weak platitudes designed to appeal to every Republican blah blah blah. I couldn't begin to tell you how he might actually vote.

And if DeDe is bad she has to run a primary again in a year. I do not see all this as worth spliting the party even more right now - especially so as there is money flowing to influence opinion and people are not being candid about where it's coming from.

[Ryan Booth]

You are correct that Thompson didn't have an overpowering desire to be President. Neither did George Washington. Thompson got into the race because other people thought he would be a good President and asked him to. As a former supporter of his, I find it incomprehensible how our political society has elevated a lust for power into some kind of virtue.

Thompson was sunk because people kept using his lack of powerlust as a reason to question whether he could win, saying that he "lacked the fire in the belly" to win, which was simply not true. Fred didn't lose because of a "lack of fire" but because of the consistent claims of others that his humility proved him unworthy.

I'm also sick of the pretension that Romney is a dedicated conservative. Thank goodness the impending collapse of Romneycare in Massachusetts is reminding people that he's had no trouble supporting big government programs in the past. Romney is the opposite of Fred -- a typical, power-hungry politician willing to change his stripes at will to get elected.

[Bruce NV]

I lived in MA before I came out here...Mitt is no conservative. And Fred is no hack, he's a decent God- and Country-loving conservative who believes in Liberty. The candidate that the Rino-NC backed in NY-23 will pull a Spector in 30 seconds if she thinks it'll save her sorry ass. Hoffman gets my money, and the national committee gets not one red cent.

[Aaron Durst]

Thought experiment. Imagine that Mitt Romney defeated Ted Kennedy in 1994, and kept winning re-election in Massachusetts. Would his senatorial track record be more or less conservative than John McCain's?

I think the answer to that is obvious. Consequently, I think it is humorous that you would claim that Fred Thompson is not a conservative because he prevented conservatives from rallying around Mitt Romney.

Also, I am no Huckabee supporter, but some of his populism can actually be justified on conservative grounds. For example, he has embraced a classic form of populism of attacking corporations that profit at the expense of the little man. Well, many corporations seek government involvement in the market place to gain an economy of scales comparative advantage against their competitors. In essence, they are profiting at the expense of the little man. As a free market conservative, I have no problem with populist conservative pointing this out.

[Dan Riehl]

Someone is going to have to point out where I claimed Romney was a dyed in the wool conservative as I don't recall writing that anywhere.

Was he the best we had, as opposed to McCain, in 08? Yes, frankly, I believe he was. And he certainly had a better chance of beating Obama than any of the others did. And anyone who wants to argue that it's better somehow we have Obama in the WH now is deranged.

[Marc Malone]

I agree with you on Huckabee. I like him, make no mistake. He really is a good guy. Thing is, I couldn't tell him apart from Bush. He would truly have been a third term of Bush. Compassionate conservative = Liberal Republican. Huckabee was an effective Governor in many ways, as any conservative Democrat could be.

The problem is that the Socialists have hijacked the Democratic Party, so the real Democrats have become Liberal Republicans. Bush, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney. They get the primary votes, because they sound like Dems but call themselves Pubs, but they can't win the general, because the base (conservative Pubs) won't get out for them. Give me a true Conservative Republican: one who knows the word "No!" Someone has to be the adult in government.

[Cincinnatus]

I can't imagine any career politican giving the back of the hand to Michael Moore the way Fred Thompson did. How does he debate? Do politicians skip pandering and argue the principle of an idea? Do they know why they know what they know? Reagan did, Palin maybe, GWB maybe. Romney, no.

[Captain Joe]

It’s time to run conservatives against the RINO’s and to punish the RINO’s and take votes from them even if it elects Demonrats. That’s the only way we can tell the RNC to run true conservatives. They seem to have a thick skull.

[Mike K]

I like Thompson and agree that he did not have the fire in the belly that seems to be the requirement. If you saw his wife, you might understand it. The tea party movement is libertarian, I think, and will not support the me-too politicians who ruined the Republican brand in economics. One way to send them off to a third party prematurely is to ignore the conservative guy in this race. To quote you, there will be another primary in this seat in a year. This just might be a test of the tea party brand. For president in 2012, I think it's Sarah vs Mitt and may the best man win. I like em both for different reasons. Before this is all over, we might have a third party anyway.

[Lala]

Vote at Allah's poll

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/16/rasmussen-huckabee-29-romney-24-palin-18/

[ThomasD]

"Someone is going to have to point out where I claimed Romney was a dyed in the wool conservative..."

So dyed-in-the-wool is your new standard of argumentation? In regards to Thompson you did say "[b]ut he did keep conservatives from rallying around Romney."

And no, they are not equivalent. Buth then again, the tack of your argument is borderline dishonest.

Make your case for or against. Tell me why conservatives should not rally around Hoffman? They certainly have no business rallying around the likes of Scozzafava.

[SMSgt Mac]

While I lay no claim to insight regarding the GOP Beltway Boys - I wanted Fred to get in a lot earlier than his half-hearted play- I saw early on how the Huckster was stealing enough 'Conservative' voters away from more Conservative candidates in the primaries' caucus states to allow the Admiral's Son to win early with just pluralities.
I consider the Huckster to be the stalking horse that saddled us with McLame. And this came about because of the real rubes in the equation: the brain-dead branch of the Southern Baptist Convention as Huckabee's zombies. What are Conservative GOP planners doing to wake up and break up Huckabee's networks down South?

[Dan Riehl]

"Make your case for or against."

I'll get on that just as soon as I start writing my blog posts to please you, Thomas. Trust me on that one, guy.

[happyfeet]

I didn't realize Fred Thompson was so enamored of Meghan's useless daddy that he would contrive such a cheesy charade. I supported him. I feel very stupid. Whether or not someone supported Meghan's useless daddy is one of the most important things you can know about someone what purports to be useful and conservative in their views I think. Fred is as useless as Meghan's useless daddy's daughter. It makes me a little angry.

[happyfeet]

Also Romney will have spent something like 6 years of his life doing nada but running for president by 2012. That's the very definition of useless I think. Well, except for being Meghan's daddy.

Pathetic.

[Tennwriter]

Mr. Riehl,

I was agreeing wholly with your 10:55 comment until about the last line. It seems Scozzafava is a RINO, and she is supported by the NRSC. Both good reasons to vote against her.

Yes, we should consider voting against any NRSC candidate (unless they have other endorsements that outweigh that.) It is time to provoke a split in the party. The RINOs will take us off the cliff at ten miles per hour unless we pry their deathgrip from the steering wheel of the car. And if that requires getting out a hammer and breaking their fingers, so be it.

Conservatives don't have a choice. We let the RINOs win, and R's lose. We fight the RINOs and cause a civil war severe enough to lose, and we lose the general election. Only if we can beat the RINOs down, and take over the R party does the R party get on a winning course over time.

Some RINOs expect I think that the Obama hatred will be strong enough to let them keep up their old corruption (which you describe quite well) and let them get in. Perhaps. But not if Conservatives beat them up. And perhaps not. One would have thought that Clinton would not get two terms, but the R's put up Sen. Dole. Obama's best chance for a second term is the RINOs keeping control of the R party.

Or as Sun Tzu said...'on death ground, fight.'

And Kempermanx, 'god freaks' built this nation, invented much of the things you enjoy, crafted liberties, and saved the world. I know you're trying to slam Huckabee, but you're not doing a very good job.

[happyfeet]

Well you've certainly not started my day in a happy place, Mr. Riehl. At least you didn't bring up that Lindsey Graham one. It would be all day before I shook that off.

[Dabney]

I wonder if you are one of the many who was bought and paid for by Romney.

Did you seriously just say it is important to find out what side the persons bread is buttered on and then attack Huck and Thompson while puffing Mitt?

Mitt bought leaders on the right like no one I can recall in any previous election cycle. He also bought bloggers, bought radio hosts, bought so cons of various causes...

Romneycare is bankrupting Mass and is a complete failure.

This is honestly kind of hilarious but also kind of sad. Your post would make me laugh if it did not remind me as you whine about Fred helping McCain that Romney lied in Iowa and destroyed Fred's campaign and any hopes he had by denying him third with a complete lie that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain.

[happyfeet]

Romney was the only remotely viable conservative one in the race at the time Fred bailed, Mr. Dabney. I would have voted for him even in 2008 against that Obama person. Somewhat enthusiastically even.

Fred did drop put and endorse McCain. I thought it was just normal stupid team playeryness but now I think he was probably just being a geriatric douchebag. In American politics you shouldn't assign behaviours to some explanation involving studious analysis when there's geriatric douchebags involved. Also if the support Meghan's useless daddy, that's a big big clew.

[happyfeet]

oh. Also if *they* support Meghan's useless daddy I mean

[Dabney]

What are Conservative GOP planners doing to wake up and break up Huckabee's networks down South?

The GOP cannot break up Huck unless they find a better authentic social and fiscal con to rally behind in the primary.

Huckabee has a bad record as a fiscal con, but if he declared himself one in 2011, he would have a longer track record in 2012 than Romney did as a pro life or pro gun candidate in 2008.

Anyone who did not see behind the $$$ was shocked at the election results. Anyone who actually attended speeches, watched Romney vids running left of Kennedy, listened to him lie about being a "lifelong hunter" etc knew he was a phony and prayed for something better.

The GOP needs a brilliant leader who is for small government. George W Bush and the GOP squandered power by expanding government and working with Ted K.

The Christians in the South who vote passionately in the primary care more about life than any other issue. They will not accept a phony on that issue. They also care secondarily about lots of things including small government. They give lots to charity and would give more if they had lower taxes. They will rally around a Sarah Palin because she is one of them, and they hate the sneering elitism of the idiots who went to Harvard but who say "Cinco de Quatro." They are aware that almost all of the leaders of this country politically look like idiots without teleprompters. They want people who know more than they do but who will follow the constitution, protect their guns, pray to God and walk humbly before him.

Federalists, real ones, could make good arguments to the So Cons that less should be happening on the Federal level regarding homosexuality, abortion etc but only if the Supreme Court throws those issues back to the states.

Dan if you think Romney is the solution to any of our problems, I submit that you need to do some research.

[George B]

Captain Joe wrote: "It’s time to run conservatives against the RINO’s and to punish the RINO’s and take votes from them even if it elects Demonrats. That’s the only way we can tell the RNC to run true conservatives. They seem to have a thick skull."

The Club for Growth actually defeated a RINO, Joe Schwarz MI-07, in the primary and relatively conservative candidate Tim Walberg won the general election in 2006.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/club_candidate_tim_walberg/
If conservatives can get elected in 2006, a horrible year for Republicans, explain to me how the conservative candidate is less electable than the RINO? Unfortunately, in 2008 McCain's campaign "experts" anounced to the world that they were pulling out of Michigan and Tim Walberg lost a close race.

It seems clear to me that conservatives need to bypass the NRCC and give directly to conservative candidates in the primaries. Not one red cent to the GOP! Since NY-23 makes no difference on which party is in the majority, voting for the conservative over the Republican is an almost free protest vote with upside potential. However, if the RINO wins, she will have the incumbent advantage in 2010. In either case, the winner will not have the power to make Pelosi the powerless minority leader.

[John Higgins]

Waiting for a conservative third party to form. Until then, not a dime to the RNC.

[Roger Lewis]

Conservatives should back the liberal Republican against the Conservative Republican because two of the Conservative's endorsers don't meet your standards? This is weird. Is this an attempt to attract attention like those bizarre attacks on Jonah Goldberg? Or do you feel the need to follow all the twists and turns of the excitable and unpredictable Newt Gingrich? Next are we going to read that real statesmen make global warming commercials on a coach with Nancy Pelosi?

[Roger Lewis]

To happyfeet:

"I didn't realize Fred Thompson was so enamored of Meghan's useless daddy that he would contrive such a cheesy charade."

I'd check the facts. It seems like you are relying on a hostile source for facts.

[happyfeet]

I don't think he's saying that people should back the dowdy heifer, Mr. Lewis, just that Thompson and Huckabee are loser non-conservative stupidheads. You know who's super special useless is that Newt Gingrich. I bet he's boinking that Dede hoochie or wants to really bad. He's sort of a slut.

[Roger Lewis]

To Dabney:

"What are Conservative GOP planners doing to wake up and break up Huckabee's networks down South?"

You write like a Democrat.

[happyfeet]

oh. No. I'm relying on Mr. Riehl for facts and it rings true. Besides, even if Mr. Riehl is wrong Fred is ready for the iceberg anyway. After Meghan's useless daddy's performance you conservative ones really shouldn't be so hostile about the death panels I don't think. Faster, please.

[SDN]

Dan, did you do ANY research on Fred Thompson? He had an interview in the Wall Street Journal in 08 where he specifically stated he voted for McCain / Feingold, he was WRONG to do that, and would sign the REPEAL.

You're better than this.

[Dabney]

What a complete nut...

Fred Thompson has more to offer America in terms of political leadership than young "leaders" who are full of platitudes and little else.

America did not deserve Fred Thompson. We now demand out of our leaders soundbites and trivia not the ability to reason and debate and articulate clear policy ideas that have the specificity to become the basis for legislation.

Unfortunately America got what we deserved in Barack Obama.

I am waiting for all the Ron Paul crowd to get behind a real small government conservative.

If one candidate was pro life, was pro Constitution, pro gun rights, anti corporate welfare, anti welfare, anti corruption (that the GOP and Dems engage in) they would enjoy a groundswell of support that Mitts millions could not overcome.

[happyfeet]

Fred Thompson is not the future. He needs to stop emailing me all the time it just makes him look needy.

[happyfeet]

Megahan's useless daddy should have dropped out of the race and endorsed Fred. Then maybe our little country wouldn't be sinking into the dirty socialist muck of history like a little lost mastodon what wandered away from the herd.

[happyfeet]

*Meghan's useless daddy* I mean...

[You can't ask for people's names in Obama's America]

If Huckabee is the nominee I will vote third party. He is a fool and a panderer with no principles.
I live in the South and his type are a dime a dozen down here. You can find one on every used car lot. He is Herb Tarlek without the endearing qualities.

Romney is not a fiscal conservative and is unacceptable to anyone who values small government. Anyone passing government health care in any form should not be allowed on the ticket as a Republican. That should be definitional. No vote for him either even if Chavez is up for a second term.

Thompson would be a very good president IMO and would be acceptable to both the social and fiscal conservatives. He screwed up the campaign finance vote but his record is unblemished otherwise. He was my senator so I am well acquainted with his record. He advocated all of the right policies during his run and sounded presidential doing it.

Palin would also be acceptable. But you would lose the RINO's and the bigots like Allah Pundit (who is fast going the way of Charles Johnson). If you watch carefully NONE of the criticism of Palin is based on policy. People who treat politics like horse racing have no business voting or telling others how to do so. I am an atheist like Allah and even I can see he needs to get over his religious bigotry. Too often polls are just used as a means of discouraging people from voting their consciences. The media beats Palin over the head at every opportunity with no chance for her to respond so of course she would be unelectable in their eyes. But the fact they feel the need to attack her means she is the candidate they most fear. That speaks volumes in her favor.

It is very simple for me. I do not vote based upon who I think will win but upon whose positions I think are best and how likely it seems they will hew to them. Even if Palin were the idiot she is painted to be it is better to have an idiot working in service of the right policies than it is to have a genius in pursuit of the wrong ones. If Huck or Romney make an argument that they will be more acceptable to the eco-idiot or RINO crowd then they become less desirable as candidates in my eyes in direct proportion to how true that statement is. I vote on a candidate's positions and substance, not on fluff and bluster... or some pundit's idea of electability.

We just elected the most popular guy in school. We should have learned our lesson about valuing style over substance by now.

Let's face it, Palin is likely all we have. No on else has the guts and foresight to come out full bore against socialism with the same vigor. It would be nice if someone else would step up but having seen the example the media has made of Palin I don't think that is very likely. So given that these are the facts, it would be nice if the blogs on the right would get behind her and quit trying to tear her down and quit trying to get people to vote for half-measures like Romney or Huckabee.

[ThomasD]

Dan,

I was operating under the impression you were writing these posts to *convince* people.

My bad.

Carry on.

[Jim Russell]

I am really tired of the continuous attack on other Republican leaders. I have to be careful, too. I do not like some of the folks who are thinking of entering the race.

The long and short of it is: They have to sell themselves. If your guy cannot sell himself, shut up or go away.

I live in Arkansas. I like Huckabee, but he is not my candidate yet. I don't like his fair tax proposal. I am afraid that it will bring us a national sales tax without getting rid of the income tax. But he is a good Republican. So stop calling him names. HE has supported raising some taxes in Arkansas. We are not a wealthy state and some tax raising was necessary to support some public programs.

I am afraid anti tax Republicans will be disappointed in any new REpublican President. I hope not, but what Obama is doing is going cause some tax rises just to clean up the mess.

If this name calling keeps up, we may grab defeat out of the jaws of victory. As I believe Obama's policies are going to cause absolute disaster, I am hopeful the disaster will stop the name calling.

I do warn that as of know I believe Hucabee will sweep the south. If he does and does well in the
midwest, he will be the nominee. Name calling will not stop him. He is fast on is feet. He has the Reagan peronality trait og having personal attack bounce off of him (the ah chucks folks aurora). The conservative church going folks in this area love him. You will have to beat him with ideas and personality not name calling.

Why do you jump on Fred Thompson because he liked McCain. Romney was no prize. Romney will not be a prize. With great restraint I will not get peronal.

In short the Republican voting electorate has a right to pick its nominee. If you know that you might not be able to accept that choice, please get lost.

I am not a party hack. I would support Hoffman in the New York Congressional race. The Republican candidate was not picked by any imagination by the Republican voters. She was chosen by a group of leaders who did not understand their voters. Obviously Scozzafava would be in the left wing of the Democrat Party in Arkansas. I am not calling her names. I am reviewing her ideas and associations.

[happyfeet]

If other Republican leasers didn't suck balls I bet they wouldn't get attacked so much. Meghan's useless daddy's Republican Main Street Partnership is a lot responsible. Huckabee sucks balls every bit as eagerly as Meghan's useless daddy sucks balls. Romney sucks balls incessantly. Thompson is too old and tired to suck balls with any vigor. Republicans need to really really focus on finding a nominee that doesn't suck balls. Hint: it's not the one what is getting positive press in the dirty socialist media.

[happyfeet]

The problem is that after nominating Meghan's useless daddy, Republicans simply have no credibility, and this Dede heifer only underscores that.

[davis,br]

What better time to absolutely destroy the RINOs, even the GOP, as the Democrats seem intent on destroying themselves?

Fire all the bastards.

I've voted GOP since Carter. But I was not happy when the GOP demonstrated during Bush that they'd morphed into the Democrat Lite party. I don't believe it IS a choice when the choice is between those who would spend us into oblivion this afternoon, and those who want to draw it out until mid-day tomorrow.

All of this is not an argument for a united GOP, staving off the Goths at the walls of the city, but prolonging our national demise. Clean house NOW, while the Democrats are intent upon their own seppuku.

Fire.Them.All. I don't trust any of those fricking greedy self-aggrandizing incompetent fools any longer. ANY OF 'EM!!!!!

...and then go back and search out the finances of EVERY former Congressman and staffer and take their ill-gotten riches back through an aggressive and confiscatory tax act ...riches that they've looted from the citizens of this land.

As a warning.

I've had enough of this crap; time to cowboy up.

[happyfeet]

oh. other Republican *leaders* I mean. The best hope Republicans have in 2012 is someone we're not talking about. And that really works in his or her favor I think. If the Republican nominee in 2012 is of the same Republican party these nancy boys what we're talking about are from, they're gonna fall on their ass and the dirty socialist little president man will win win win.

[the bishop]

That nice and all hf, but look what they did with the freshest face in politics, and they
didn't bother with the truth either. I know
she wasn't officially the candidate, but can one doubt that she received the contempt and
the support as if she was. So bring on Daniels,
and Cheney and Blitzen, and see what happens