Super Tuesday Results & stuffFollow

Huckabee wins WVa -- wtf?

I was a little suprised to see this, till I read the article and then it made sense. I guess.

Yea so, I saw things going differently.

After it became obvious that Huckabee was just cock blocking Mit Romney, I thought the Republicans would shun McCain and endorse Romney.

As a Republican, I am all for Romney.

If one candidate on the Republican side could be the least amount of an improvement over Bush, it was McCain.

On top of that McCain doesn't have the support of his party that I can see. I mean, he talks about being Conservative, but has blatantly Liberal views.

What the crap are Republicans doing?

Pretty much the election will be between Hillary / Obamma and McCain.

At first I thought anything would be better than George Bush, but now I'm just frustrated and depressed. All I can really see for the future is higher taxes and garnished wages to pay for a national health care.

I mean...

WTF are you doing America..

This is actually the reason I do support him. Of the Republicans, he has been the least likely to do that.

Also I think our economy would be better off in his hands than the other candidates.

Except when he ran for Governor as pro-choice, then ran for President pro-life.

Atleast McCain has always been conservative when it comes to social issues.

As a Republican, I am all for Romney.

Why? He's not a Republican.

That's not entirely accurate though. Actually, it's not even close.

As a Governor in an overwhelmingly pro-choice state, he signed pro-choice laws passed by the state legislature. For conservatives, it's not about being for or against any single issue (as much as some seem to think). It's about where government should act within the scope of our system. Conservatives make a distinction between foreign and domestic policy (ie: Government should wield strong power internationally, but have a light hand domestically). We make a distinction between branches within the government (ie: The executive and Legislative branches have different powers and functions and decisions made in one branch should be made differently in the other). And finally, we make a distinction between the level of the government involved (ie: State and local government should be more actively involved in "morality laws" then the federal level).

It would be incredibly hypocritical for Republicans to argue for decades that Roe v. Wade was a horrible ruling because abortion laws should be set in each state based on the desires of that state's citizens and then turn around and say: "But a state that heavily supports pro-choice shouldn't be able to pass pro-choice leaning legislation".


It's the same deal with Guiliani and his Illegal Immigration issue in New York. He got attacked because he chose to ignore the illegal status of people if they came forward to be witnesses in criminal investigations. But that's a local decision based on the specifics of that city. You cannot assume that this in anyway indicates what his policies would be at the federal level. Just as you can assume that just because Romney signed pro-choice legislation at the state level, it doesn't mean that he's going to pursue a pro-choice agenda at the federal level.

Those aren't inconsistent positions. In fact, they are perfectly consistent with classical conservative views. Let the citizens of the states set their laws regarding abortion. Don't impose it on them from on high. That's what conservatives stand for.



Well. Yes and no. McCain is fine as a conservative. He also has been bashed on issues, when he shouldn't have been (for much the same reasons I outlined above).

He does have a track record as a legislator of being too willing to compromise significant portions of conservative position in order to get a bill with his name on it to the floor. Looking purely at McCain-Kennedy, it was clear what McCain's position was he wanted the focus on the national security angle, and thought that coming up with a way to allow for the existing labor push from Mexico to be able to find the employment they need in a legal manner would help by reducing the "needle in a haystack" problem we're faced with today.

Unfortunately, his partner in this choose to toss in some additional aspects to the bill that largely nullified the benefits and made it unpalatable to most Republicans (beyond even the "OMG! You're not just going to build a big fence?). Dems didn't like it either because it didn't protect union jobs and salaries, so it died a horrible death.

Um... But at least he tried something. Also, there's no reason to assume that his willingness to overly compromise as a Senator (legislative branch) translates into being a pushover in the White House. Again. They're different branches with different powers and responsibilities. Congress is kinda supposed to come up with compromises. The Senate especially. The President is supposed to set policy and work towards achieving those things. Those really are two very different things...

Actually Gbaji, you're not entirerly accurate. In fact, you're not even close.

Linky

There's even a video on the page where Romney and his wife tell you about his pro-choice stance!

I too got the impression that McCain is looking to have Huckabee as a running mate. Let's face it, a vast majority of McCain's victories came in states that generally vote Democratic in the Presidential elections (New York as a prime example) and will be difficult to reclaim in November. Furthermore, McCain's support among evangelicals is extremely low, where we noticed an extremely large support for Huckabee (states that he won or were very close for McCain) in states with larger evangelical populations. In essence, McCain needs to secure the votes from traditionally "Red" states, but his victories last night were not terribly indicative of having a good foothold in those states. Hence, the potential help of Huckabee...

Plus, of the three GOP candidates, Huckabee, is arguably the most personable and the one who most Americans would "identify" with. He obviously has some pretty consistent pockets of support, as evidenced by his surprise performance last night. His popularity with the evangelical and socially conservative voters would make him a prime candidate for VP, and a clincher for those populations for McCain. I think McCain is a great candidate with a lot of credability, but many conservatives are not too crazy about him because he's a more "middle-of-the-road" Republican. Once again, a Huckabee running-mate could balance all of that out quite a bit.

Honestly, Romney's tendencies to flip-flop, which are exactly that no matter how you slice it, hurt him tremendously as a candidate. No one really knows what he stands for, and what he will being to the presidency (besides great hair and lots of cash).

Now, for the Democrats I am pretty happy how last night turned out- it's essentially a dead-even race at this point. My personal beliefs are that Hillary would still be too divisive as a President- not because she is a female, or even a Clinton, but because she is Hillary Clinton. The conservatives love to hate Hillary, and it's my personal opinion that a more bipartisan approach is going to be the way to go. Hence, one of the many reasons I did and will continue to support Obama. That's just me, though, and I won't get into that right now. ;)

Edited for clarity and REALLY stupid typos.


Edited, Feb 6th 2008 6:16pm by Alixana

Who gives a **** what Romney thinks. He has zero chance of impacting this election any further unless he wildly throws support to Huckabee, which he won't.

He'll have a crappy speech at the convention and everyone will go back to forgetting who he is in September.

I've lived in Mass my whole life and Romney blows, period.

Everything he's done has been carefully planned to get to the White House. For example, he only became Governor of MA because he knew that with his ultra-religious background, it'd look good on his resume that he was governor of the most liberal state in the union.

I'm voting for McCain (in spirit) because while I might not agree with him on some issues (like Iraq), he's the only politician I've ever seen run for president who actually talks like a human being and not a @#%^ing sock puppet for their party.

I say in spirit because it's not like my vote for a Republican will make ANY difference living in Mass.

Edited, Feb 6th 2008 7:20pm by DaimenKain

Because the judges bit puts the power back into the states (where it should be)

Totally, slavery too.

lmao

Hey if they don't like getting exploited they can go back to Mexico whenever they want.

That's the "right way" to codify rights.

Civil war? Good to know.


That's the "right way" to codify rights. The Dem method is the "wrong way". If the Liberals think that abortion ought to be a "right", then they should convince a sufficiently large percentage of the population so that they will be able to get 2/3rds of both houses, and 3/4ths of the states to pass/ratify an amendment stating that a woman has a right to an abortion.

No, you fucking moron. No one *thinks* it's a Constitutional right, it is one. See, that's how it works, Stalin, the rights belong to the people, and taking them away should be hard, not the other way around.

Your lack of any conceptual understanding of government never ceases to amaze me.