Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Dick Cheney and Barack Obama are 8th cousins

This made me giggle mildly.

[ice grillin you]

would be a much better story if al sharpton wasnt already related to strom thrumond

[Phanatic]

Colbert for President

[Rome]

Brownback is out due to a shortage of finances.

Didn't know whether to post this here or in the good riddance thread.  Either would be equally appropriate.

[Diomedes]

You made the right call.  Put him in the good riddance thread when he dies. 

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Maybe he'll be the 3rd party candidate the Christian coalition throws into the ring when the Republicans nominate Giuliani.  That would be hilarious, because even states like NC might end up going blue.

[Rome]

The fact that a fascist lunatic like Brownback has any support whatsoever in his party is chilling.  No one in their right mind should even consider him to be a viable Presidential candidate, yet for whatever reason, he actually garnered a modicum of support in his party.

Of course, this is a country that elected a mentally unhinged freak like Dubya not once, but TWICE, so it really shouldn't be the least bit surprising that someone like Brownback would find support here.

[Rome]

Posted on Sun, Oct. 21, 2007

Religious right's Giuliani dilemma

By Larry Eichel

Inquirer Senior Writer
WASHINGTON - For the leaders of the religious right, the dilemma is obvious and troubling: how to deal with a Republican presidential front-runner when he is not with you on your core issues and you haven't agreed on an alternative.

Yesterday, the source of their predicament, the pro-choice former mayor of New York, tried to ease their worries, addressing their Values Voters Summit.

In his speech, Rudolph Giuliani neither defended nor disguised his views, asking, "Isn't it better that I tell you what I really believe than to change my positions to fit the prevailing winds?"

And he talked to the crowd of 2,000 about "our shared values and goals," pledging to appoint strict-constructionist judges and support "any reasonable suggestion" to reduce the incidence of abortion.

"Please know this: You have absolutely nothing to fear from me," he said early in his speech, adding at the end, "I'll continue to extend my hand to you, and I hope you'll take it."

Giuliani didn't find a lot of immediate takers.

"One drop of poison ruins the whole soup," Phil Burress of Cincinnati said of Giuliani's words. "Nominating a pro-abortion candidate would make the Republican Party implode."

In a straw poll of 5,576 attendees and supporters voting online, Giuliani finished eighth with 107 votes, 26 more than last-place finisher Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The winner was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with 1,595 votes, just ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with 1,565.

Giuliani did succeed in reassuring some conservative Christians as they look past the nominating process to November 2008.

"He alleviated some of our fears that he is some rabid liberal working for the other side," said Tim Echols of Jefferson, Ga., a Huckabee supporter. "If he becomes the nominee and he keeps saying that kind of stuff, I'm working for him."

If activists on the Religious Right agree on anything right now as they grapple with the available options, it's that these are trying times.

"A lot of people are frustrated that no one in the top tier of candidates represents both their values and who they are as people," said Colin Hanna, leader of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative organization based in Chester County. "The frustration is pretty deep, and it's sincere. The question is whether it'll be lasting."

In 2004, the "values voters" united behind an incumbent president whom they considered one of their own, even if he didn't always live up to their expectations.

White evangelical Christians played a significant role in building George W. Bush's reelection majority. This time, though, there's no obvious place for them to go.

From their leaders' perspectives, each Republican candidate has a central flaw: Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher, hasn't raised much money; McCain isn't to be trusted; former Sen. Fred Thompson seems to lack the fire; Romney is a recent convert on key issues and a Mormon. And then there's Giuliani.

"If Giuliani is the nominee, you have a race in which abortion, gay rights, and some other social issues are off the table," said John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "Then what's the reason for this voter group, which represents at least one-fourth of the Republican base, to turn out?"

The political landscape is not to their liking, either. In American politics, social issues usually recede in prominence when the electorate is worried about peace and prosperity. At this stage, this looks like an election about peace and prosperity.

According to a recent poll by the Pew Center for the People and the Press, even white evangelicals say they are more concerned about domestic issues, including the economy, and the war in Iraq than abortion or gay rights. And a lot of them are backing Giuliani, at least for now.

So it's understandable why movement leaders aren't sure what to do.

Gary Bauer, a former presidential candidate and head of a group called American Values, speaks favorably of Thompson, saying "a Thompson-vs.-Hillary [Clinton] race would be an easy call for me to make."

John Willke, a founder of the antiabortion movement, backs Romney as "the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and for-family conservative movement to victory."

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, has denounced Giuliani and discussed a third-party option, saying that winning should not come "at the expense of what we hold most dear."

"The vast majority of social conservatives have drawn a line: They will not support a pro-abortion candidate," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which helped organize the three-day gathering. "We care about many issues. But I would say that life and [the definition of] marriage are deal breakers for many of our voters."

Mostly, though, they don't want to be taken for granted. They certainly weren't this weekend; all of the Republican candidates came to speak.

McCain assured them of the depth of his opposition to abortion.

Thompson said his first act on becoming president would be to enter the Oval Office and pray.

Romney pledged to use the bully pulpit to decry out-of-wedlock births.

Huckabee, who got the warmest reception, said he would push for a constitutional amendment on marriage to reflect "the holy word of God."

In the end, movement leaders have a limited number of choices.

They can coalesce around a single candidate in the primaries, but they risk damaging their credibility if they can't deliver. They can go the third-party route, but that almost surely guarantees election of a Democrat who supports abortion rights.

"If the choice comes down to more than two candidates, we're deciding this election before it starts," former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania warned. At the same time, though, he said "we must fight to assure" that the Republican candidate is someone who "truly shares our values."

The likelihood, analysts say, is that the leaders will scatter among several candidates for now, then come together to deal with the eventual Republican nominee.

"After a while, you've got to stop moping," Bauer said. "I don't want Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton to be the final choice. But if it is, I'll lead the delegation that goes to seek assurances from Giuliani. . . . I think he knows he can't beat her without us."

Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University, said: "They have no great options. But the death of the Christian Right - like their taking over the Republican Party - is a story that has been written too many times."

The comments in bold are precisely why the religious right in this country is mocked and ridiculed.  Absolutely disgusting, especially the comments spewed by Huckabee.  What a douchebag.  Maybe he should actually read the Constitution once before he tries to amend (befoul) it with even more religious idiocy?  Nah. 

[Diomedes]

Befoul!!

[Geowhizzer]

I fully support the separation of church and state, but should belonging to a church or profession a faith automatically bar one from running for office?  It is one of many facets of a canididate that an informed voter must consider before making his or her selection on the ballot.

I don't know enough about Huckabee right now to say whether I'd even consider voting for him. 

Abortion is an important issue for me, but far from the only consideration.  I try to view the totality of the candidates before choosing.  I couldn't make a final decision between Bush and Kerry in 2004 because they really weren't different enough.  Kerry kept saying that he's "do things better" than Bush, but never really said what he'd do differently or how he would accomplish that.  And Bush was, well... Bush. 

Personally, my favorite candidate right now is Obama.  But there is a lot of reading, listening and studying to do before November 4, 2008.

[Rome]

I don't give a shtein what invisible superman in the sky you pray to.  What I care about is if you're running the government you are willing to listen to the people and govern based on the principles of the entire electorate, not just those of whom you agree with from a spiritual standpoint.

Huckabee and those of his ilk wish to impose their loony brand of religious fundamentalism on everyone, and in my opinion, that makes them no better than the Taliban.

[Geowhizzer]

Personally, I have a hard time understanding why abortion isn't an affront to all Americans.  The ultimate crime against the most defenseless.

I can see it in the case of saving the mother's life, and I can understand, if not totally agree, with abortion in cases of rape and incest, but as a method of birth control it sickens me that so many are killed.  Not even given a chance.

But, again, it is far from the only issue, and not usually the deciding one for me.

[MDS]

Woo an abortion discussion. Let's say this: there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. No one is really pro-abortion. Pro-choice enables you to...choose. Yea, there it is. It gives you the option. And really, do you give a shtein if some hobag in Portland gets knocked-up and wants the thing killed? You don't have to get an abortion, you can keep it if you want. But if someone else wants to get rid of the thing, who cares, it's not your business.

[Geowhizzer]

Woo an abortion discussion. Let's say this: there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. No one is really pro-abortion. Pro-choice enables you to...choose. Yea, there it is. It gives you the option. And really, do you give a shtein if some hobag in Portland gets knocked-up and wants the thing killed? You don't have to get an abortion, you can keep it if you want. But if someone else wants to get rid of the thing, who cares, it's not your business.

To me, choice is a bogus argument.  Abortion doesn't affect just the mother.  It affects the life inside her - and that person isn't given a "choice."

And "none of my business?"  Neither is a murder in Kansas.  But it's still against the law.  Neither is a rape case at Duke University.  Yet thousands pontificated on that little event.

No one gives a damn about any opinion you have, but it doesn't stop you from making it known. 

I do admit, reading your scintillating prose does make me re-think my position for a minute. 

[MDS]

I love abortion discussions. Everyone gets so riled up and angry. We're usually so full of love and affection, but when it comes to little fetuses, things change. Where is the love, my crazy Republican friend?