Would love to see Rudy G be nominated and watch evangelicals squirm in their pews.

I have no clue. They all creep me the hell out.

 

 

Agree. They creep me the double hell out.

Would love to see Rudy G be nominated and watch evangelicals squirm in their pews.

 

As in the election for governor, if Rudy G is nominated, I will vote for neither. I voted for my wife in the governor election cause I couldn't stomach either choice.

I hope that the Republicans nominate the candidate that I think would do the best job. That would be McCain. I would take any of the top Democrats over him, but just in case something really bad happens and a Republican wins, I want the best possible Republican to be nominated. Of the top Republicans I think Huckabee would be the easiest to beat.

I hope that the Republicans nominate the candidate that I think would do the best job. That would be McCain. I would take any of the top Democrats over him, but just in case something really bad happens and a Republican wins, I want the best possible Republican to be nominated. Of the top Republicans I think Huckabee would be the easiest to beat.

 

Great post...I agree!

II think the evangelicals have a wary look at Rudy G and Mitt. Although if Mitt was Christian and not Mormon, I think he walks with the nomination.

 

I.

 

That doesn't speak well about us as a country nor those that fall into the "evangelical" category.

That doesn't speak well about us as a country nor those that fall into the "evangelical" category.

 

I would put it in the same mode of what would be the consideration of Obama, if he was white, or Hillary, if she was male or Obama, if his name was Andrew Johnson or something else besides a name that sounds like a radical Islamic name.

 

The same thing that some people won't consider a Republican candidate because they have an r after their name irrelevant to the quality of the character. And vice versa.

 

Not saying any of the 3 is right, just stating an observation for discussion.

That doesn't speak well about us as a country nor those that fall into the "evangelical" category.

 

I'm "evangelical," and I could care less whether or not the Mittster is a Mormon. Since doctrinal religious issues rarely survive the courts, and since Mitt doesn't seem to wear religion on his sleeve, I doubt it would make its way into policy in any way shape or form.

 

Incidentally, the LDS church does the finest job of any I have ever seen in providing structure and discipline for their families and children.

 

Contrary to popular belief, most evangelicals right now are throwing in for Fred Thompson and not the Huckster. That evinces an understanding of conservative and traditional policy-making, not church-going. If Fred could debate and make public appearances worth a hoot, I think he would have walked with the GOP nomination, but alas . . .

I'm "evangelical," and I could care less whether or not the Mittster is a Mormon. Since doctrinal religious issues rarely survive the courts, and since Mitt doesn't seem to wear religion on his sleeve, I doubt it would make its way into policy in any way shape or form.

 

Incidentally, the LDS church does the finest job of any I have ever seen in providing structure and discipline for their families and children.

 

Contrary to popular belief, most evangelicals right now are throwing in for Fred Thompson and not the Huckster. That evinces an understanding of conservative and traditional policy-making, not church-going. If Fred could debate and make public appearances worth a hoot, I think he would have walked with the GOP nomination, but alas . . .

 

That might be partly true and the reason I think when Fred Thompson leaves this race, Huckabee gets another bump. But in Iowa it wasn't true and I will look for it but heard some story this morning that Huckabee has either taken over the national lead in the polls or some other state.

 

The story was on the news while I was hitting the snooze button, so I didn't get the full story.

Found it.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103615/Huckabee-Obama-Gain-National-Level.aspx

 

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama -- both winners in last week's Iowa caucuses -- have gained support at the national level among those who identify with their respective parties. Huckabee now has a 5-percentage point advantage in the Republican race nationally, while Obama is tied with Hillary Clinton.

 

These results are from the latest USA Today/Gallup poll of national adults, conducted Jan. 4-6, 2008. All interviews were conducted following Huckabee's and Obama's wins in Iowa last Thursday night. Results from Tuesday's New Hampshire primary may produce still further changes in the national standing of the candidates.

 

Among Republicans, Huckabee has jumped from 16% of the vote in December 2007 to 25% as of this polling. Coupled with the loss of support for former front-runner Rudy Giuliani, Huckabee is now the leader among Republicans nationally, with a 5-point lead over Giuliani and 6-point lead over John McCain (who has gained 5 points since December). Mitt Romney, after failing to win in Iowa, is now in fifth place nationally with just 9% of the vote, which is his lowest percentage since early October.

That might be partly true and the reason I think when Fred Thompson leaves this race, Huckabee gets another bump. But in Iowa it wasn't true and I will look for it but heard some story this morning that Huckabee has either taken over the national lead in the polls or some other state.

 

The story was on the news while I was hitting the snooze button, so I didn't get the full story.

 

My point with Fred was that, contrary to the assertions of many on this board and elsewhere, evangelical voters are NOT looking at so-called "Gospel" issues, they are looking at truly traditional conservative issues when they provide their support. Fred Thompson is not what I would call a religious stalwart. He has divorced his wife and married a younger woman, just like Rudy G. The national media says that Rudy G. won't play with evangelicals because of his personal background, but that's not really it at all. Rudy G. won't play with evangelicals because Rudy G. does not have a conservative record. Fred does. Fred is a truly conservative policy wonk, probably the most conservative of the bunch. And evangelicals throw in behind him because of THAT, not because of whether he believes Christ is the only way to Heaven.

 

Therefore, I somewhat disagree with your contention that Huck will get a bump if and when Fred gets out. He might get a small one, but Mike Huckabee has a real problem trying to characterize himself as a traditional conservative, and I think its going to hurt him. He has a poor tax record, is seen as soft on crime, has no foreign policy experience, and those are things that conservatives still look at when we go to the booths. After Fred, your next most traditional conservative is Mitt, and I believe that nationally, Mitt (if he sticks to his guns) is going to overcome whatever connotation there is associated with his LDS affiliation and his lack of foreign policy experience, and could very well get the nomination because he is a true fiscal conservative with a financier's background.

My point with Fred was that, contrary to the assertions of many on this board and elsewhere, evangelical voters are NOT looking at so-called "Gospel" issues, they are looking at truly traditional conservative issues when they provide their support. Fred Thompson is not what I would call a religious stalwart. He has divorced his wife and married a younger woman, just like Rudy G. The national media says that Rudy G. won't play with evangelicals because of his personal background, but that's not really it at all. Rudy G. won't play with evangelicals because Rudy G. does not have a conservative record. Fred does. Fred is a truly conservative policy wonk, probably the most conservative of the bunch. And evangelicals throw in behind him because of THAT, not because of whether he believes Christ is the only way to Heaven.

 

Therefore, I somewhat disagree with your contention that Huck will get a bump if and when Fred gets out. He might get a small one, but Mike Huckabee has a real problem trying to characterize himself as a traditional conservative, and I think its going to hurt him. He has a poor tax record, is seen as soft on crime, has no foreign policy experience, and those are things that conservatives still look at when we go to the booths. After Fred, your next most traditional conservative is Mitt, and I believe that nationally, Mitt (if he sticks to his guns) is going to overcome whatever connotation there is associated with his LDS affiliation and his lack of foreign policy experience, and could very well get the nomination because he is a true fiscal conservative with a financier's background.

 

 

I would be a Mitt supporter if it wasn't for Mike Huckabee.

 

On your first paragraph, I think you are correct.

I would be a Mitt supporter if it wasn't for Mike Huckabee.

 

On your first paragraph, I think you are correct.

 

Well, let me challenge you, then, to look at why it is that you support Huckabee (and I do not mock that support mind you, I am very respectful of it, but lets assume I am trying to convince you to change your support to Mitt).

 

Assume that both Huckabee and Romney are 1) gentleman; 2) persons of strong character and integrity; 3) project a positive image of a person in command; 4) are able to act and do not wilt under pressure; 5) are able to lead; 6) are decisive.

 

In other words, you are no longer voting based upon personal issues, you are voting based upon policy issues and how you believe they would lead on those issues. What issues rev your motor? How would each act in leading the country on those issues?