No Right Wing Neo Con Candidates?

[RandFan]

Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us/politics/25secret.html?ei=5065&en=1e92d10e8c647cf1&ex=1172984400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn. I like it. :)

I'm still leaning toward Obama. I found out last week that my conservative Mother-in-law also likes Obama. Damn. Ok, it's anecdotal but perhaps something big is on the horizon.

...

[Upchurch]

I like it. :)
Certainly makes me feel better about the Republican candidates if the Religious Right can't find one they like.

[Alt+F4]

Is Pat Robertson just too old or too crazy now?

[Upchurch]

Is Pat Robertson just too old or too crazy now?
False dichotomy. ;)

[RandFan]

Is Pat Robertson just too old or too crazy now?Has he ever not been too crazy? Still, a man who can lift as much weight as he can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson#Leg_press_claims) shouldn't simply be dismissed. 2,000 pounds folks. Thats a ton.

[Pardalis]

Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, despite his efforts to make amends for having once denounced Christian conservative leaders as “agents of intolerance,” and to former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, because of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights and his three marriages.

I'm not sure I understand.

They seem to turn away from the most conservative candidates because of their "liberal views"?

:confused:

[RandFan]

I'm not sure I understand.

They seem to turn away from the most conservative candidates because of their "liberal views"?

:confused:Yes. The religious right has enjoyed a high degree of influence in politics in recent years. They seem to see politics as an all or nothing game. Most are not much into compromise. Giuliani and McCain are often labeled RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only) (Republican In Name Only). I hate that term. Hardly "big tent" rhetoric.

[Pardalis]

Giuliani and McCain are often labeled RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only) (Republican In Name Only). I hate that term. Hardly "big tent" rhetoric.

Maybe they should start their own party, like the Rhinoceros Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party_of_Canada). :D

[Azure]

Who cares about social issues though?

I want someone who can balance the budget, and have a strong foreign policy. Not the 'withdraw troops NOW' idea either.

[Upchurch]

I want someone who can balance the budget, and have a strong foreign policy. Not the 'withdraw troops NOW' idea either.
See, I want someone with a smart foreign policy. Not the 'stay the course despite the fact that it is still not working' idea either.

[gnome]

How about this business of limiting our mission to fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Perhaps an appropriate port base near the areas of interest... I'm not much of a military person, does that idea work at all?

[RandFan]

I've got to be honest here. I don't know what the correct course of action is. I worry about simply leaving Iraq. That said I'm not certain that Iraq is a priority or that it ever was. Full disclosure: I've argued for years that it was. You can blame me, in part, for supporting the war.

Secure our ports.
Secure sensitive targets like Nuclear facilities.
Prepare to handle large scale disasters. 9/11 proved beyond any doubt that we are woefully incapable of dealing with such disasters. Remember that what happened in Louisiana was both predicted and was a major priority for FEMA. Our failure there revealed very systemic problems and a refusal to focus on serious issues raised by 9/11.Anyone who I believe will make a serious attempt to better prepare us at home will likely get my vote.

[Upchurch]

Full disclosure: I've argued for years that it was. You can blame me, in part, for supporting the war.
Now that's honesty I can get behind. What office are you running for?

Secure our ports.
Secure sensitive targets like Nuclear facilities.
Prepare to handle large scale disasters. {snip}
Hear, hear.

Living under a general fog of fear is exactly what terrorism is designed to do. Proactively attacking those people who we are afraid might do us harm is not a winning solution. There will always be more people who might do us harm and pre-emptively attacking them will only push others to be against us.

[fuelair]

Maybe they should start their own party, like the Rhinoceros Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party_of_Canada). :D

I was thinking more of the Rectum Party - but I am some predjudiced in that area.:D

[gnome]

Living under a general fog of fear is exactly what terrorism is designed to do. Proactively attacking those people who we are afraid might do us harm is not a winning solution. There will always be more people who might do us harm and pre-emptively attacking them will only push others to be against us.

That is a great way of saying something I've been trying to put in words for years.

[Azure]

See, I want someone with a smart foreign policy. Not the 'stay the course despite the fact that it is still not working' idea either.

Whoa, I never said we should stay the course either.

I realize that the troops need to come out eventually, but pulling then out the day after the new POTUS gets into office isn't necessarily the best decision either.

Trust me, I want a smart foreign policy as well.

[shecky]

Who cares about social issues though?



Apparently, the Republican party does: refer to the OP.

My favorite part of the interview:

[Grover Norquist] argued that with the right promises, any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records, just as some high school students take abstinence pledges even after having had sex.


“It’s called secondary virginity,” Mr. Norquist said. “It is a big movement in high school and also available for politicians.”
Yes, you can regain your small government cherry, if you only wish it to be true! They might even have more success than those virginity pledges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginity_pledge).

[SezMe]

Who cares about social issues though?
In a word, "conservatives".

Surely you remember the mantra during the Clinton impeachment wars: "You cannot separate the man from the job." "Character counts." Blah, blah, blah.

Have you read "What's wrong with Kansas"? It directly speaks to your question. People voted against their own personal best interest in favor of social issues such as abortion. Whatever your political stripe, it is a fascinating read. If you do read it, Azure, you'll retract your question.

[steverino]

Sez- I am in the minority. I don't care about social issues. Gays should have civil unions or maybe get married if they want. Abortion is murder, but people want it so it should be legal. Hip-hop culture is very negative, but politics shouldn't legislate (bad) taste. I don't care if a candidate is a white person, black person, or has a penis or not. But I won't vote Democrat nationally. So far all those candidates want to appease and compromise with those who want our existance erased. As for their Middle-East policies, they seem to have no ideas.

[The Fool]

So far all those candidates want to appease and compromise with those who want our existance erased.
I hate those sneaky Europeans too......

[SezMe]

Sez- I am in the minority. I don't care about social issues. Gays should have civil unions or maybe get married if they want. Abortion is murder, but people want it so it should be legal. Hip-hop culture is very negative, but politics shouldn't legislate (bad) taste. I don't care if a candidate is a white person, black person, or has a penis or not.

Heresy! Scoundrel! Mountebank! A conservative with a mind of his own. Out, damn Spot, out! :)

But I won't vote Democrat nationally. So far all those candidates want to appease and compromise with those who want our existance erased.

Ah, solid basis for a pissing contest; what could be better?

But, seriously, let's look at your language: "appease and compromise". Those two words are used by those on the right as synonymous but they are not. Worse, "appease" has an awful connotation that "poisons the well" of the word "compromise", which, in turn, has a negative connotation with the word that should be used, which is "negotiate".

But, you may well argue (as many on the right have), how can you negotiate "with those who want our existance erased"? I would have two responses. First, which will establish our agreement, you probably (note the emphasis; I don't even rule out the possibility that negotiations can change hard-line positions) can't negotiate with those folks.

Second, the fatal flaw in your argument is to view the "enemy" as both monolithic and inflexible. Take Iran as an example. Sure Ahmadinejad is full of bluster about confronting the west. But he has, in fact, proffered a basis for negotiations between Iran and the USA but we were the ones who rebuffed the offer. And it is well reported that his views are not monolithlically held within Iran, especially with the younger generation.

As for their Middle-East policies, they seem to have no ideas.
Puhleeeze. The opposite is the problem. Murtha has one suggested policy. Feingold another. Biden a third. And on and on and on. In fact, one criticism from the right is that the left does not have one coherent plan. Hey, they're right. The left is FULL of plans.

Let me close with a challenge to you on this very point. What are the plans from the right?

"Stay the course"? That's not a plan as everyone agrees.
"Surge"? The military, political and diplomatic arms of Bush's own policy apparatus says its a loser.

So, Steve, what is your solution to the Iraq problem?

[Mephisto]

I've got to be honest here. I don't know what the correct course of action is. I worry about simply leaving Iraq. That said I'm not certain that Iraq is a priority or that it ever was. Full disclosure: I've argued for years that it was. You can blame me, in part, for supporting the war.

Secure our ports.
Secure sensitive targets like Nuclear facilities.
Prepare to handle large scale disasters. 9/11 proved beyond any doubt that we are woefully incapable of dealing with such disasters. Remember that what happened in Louisiana was both predicted and was a major priority for FEMA. Our failure there revealed very systemic problems and a refusal to focus on serious issues raised by 9/11.Anyone who I believe will make a serious attempt to better prepare us at home will likely get my vote.

Hey RF, it honestly takes a good person to admit something like this. I can remember going 'round & 'round with you about this subject and your list of "To do," things for a good candidate sounds like something I'd argued for in the past.

Welcome to the dark side. ;)

P.S. I am your father.

[Mephisto]

How about this business of limiting our mission to fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Perhaps an appropriate port base near the areas of interest... I'm not much of a military person, does that idea work at all?

In might work if you could discern (while being shot at) who is a member of Al Qaeda and who isn't. Also, you'd have to know if it was a member of Al Qaeda who set the IED alongside the road you're traveling.

Also, building a military base near the areas of interest is a good idea until you realize that Al Qaeda is far more clandestinely mobile than our military.

Going back to the OP - we should just be glad that religious (i.e. Christian) right-wing candidates are no longer able to dictate military strategy through their position in government. It's proven disasterous so far. :)

[RandFan]

Hey RF, it honestly takes a good person to admit something like this. I can remember going 'round & 'round with you about this subject and your list of "To do," things for a good candidate sounds like something I'd argued for in the past.

Welcome to the dark side. ;)

P.S. I am your father.Thanks, be careful about what you read into my statement. My position hasn't changed that much. I'm just willing to concede that Iraq shouldn't have been our main priority and other issues have suffered perhaps because of it. I have been making the points about list of things to do since Katrina.

Again, thanks.

RandFan

[Darth Rotor]

That is a great way of saying something I've been trying to put in words for years.

Living under a general fog of fear is exactly what terrorism is designed to do. Proactively attacking those people who we are afraid might do us harm is not a winning solution. There will always be more people who might do us harm and pre-emptively attacking them will only push others to be against us.
That behavior is partly a result of the success of 9-11, and partly a side effect of what Kinky Friedman refers to as "the pussification of America." The whinging, tooth gnashing and garment rending, the emoting and drama queen response, rather than a Brit style "get on with it" and a TR "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach are symptoms of a profound problem in national character -- well, character as expressed by the punditry and various public officials.

I hold the Jersy Girls in a different sort of disdain than the run of the mill neocon pundits do.

DR

[Mephisto]

Thanks, be careful about what you read into my statement. My position hasn't changed that much. I'm just willing to concede that Iraq shouldn't have been our main priority and other issues have suffered perhaps because of it. I have been making the points about list of things to do since Katrina.

Don't worry, I was taking your change of heart at face value - besides Iraq was the subject we most often argued about and it's good to see you now believe that it's taking valuable resources away from the growing problems in Afghanistan and our security here at home.

Katrina WAS the straw that broke the camel's back, wasn't it? I've gone "survivalist" since then and have begun storing food, water and other supplies since it's become as clear as an unmuddied lake that the government is painfully slow to deploy in the case of a natural catastrophe.

You DO know that you now fall into the category of "flip-flopper," don't you? ;)

[RandFan]

Don't worry, I was taking your change of heart at face value - besides Iraq was the subject we most often argued about and it's good to see you now believe that it's taking valuable resources away from the growing problems in Afghanistan and our security here at home.

Katrina WAS the straw that broke the camel's back, wasn't it? I've gone "survivalist" since then and have begun storing food, water and other supplies since it's become as clear as an unmuddied lake that the government is painfully slow to deploy in the case of a natural catastrophe.

You DO know that you now fall into the category of "flip-flopper," don't you? ;):) Wink Smilie appreciated.

Yes, by political-rhetorical standards I am a "flip-flopper".

[gnome]

In might work if you could discern (while being shot at) who is a member of Al Qaeda and who isn't. Also, you'd have to know if it was a member of Al Qaeda who set the IED alongside the road you're traveling.

I wasn't suggesting holding fire when fired upon, of course.

Also, building a military base near the areas of interest is a good idea until you realize that Al Qaeda is far more clandestinely mobile than our military.

The military base is mainly to provide a landing for escalation if the reduced profile ever needs to change.

[hgc]

I don't understand why they don't go full-force behind Sam Brownback. He's as devout of a Chritianist Theocrat as you could ask for. Is it his criticism of Bush's war escalation? Bucking Dear Leader may be political apostacy, but it's also starting to look like smart politics.

[hgc]

By the way, I must protest the thread title. These guys are not looking for a neocon candidate, they're looking for a certified Christianist candidate.

[Azure]

In a word, "conservatives".

Surely you remember the mantra during the Clinton impeachment wars: "You cannot separate the man from the job." "Character counts." Blah, blah, blah.

Have you read "What's wrong with Kansas"? It directly speaks to your question. People voted against their own personal best interest in favor of social issues such as abortion. Whatever your political stripe, it is a fascinating read. If you do read it, Azure, you'll retract your question.

I agree with Steve on this one.

While I do care about social issues, I certainly hope everyone does, I will not be necessarily voting for a candidate because of his views on social issues.

[steverino]

Second, the fatal flaw in your argument is to view the "enemy" as both monolithic and inflexible. Take Iran as an example. Sure Ahmadinejad is full of bluster about confronting the west. But he has, in fact, proffered a basis for negotiations between Iran and the USA but we were the ones who rebuffed the offer. And it is well reported that his views are not monolithlically held within Iran, especially with the younger generation.

Hey, Sez. Thanks for considering the issues in my post.:) I'm flattered. First of all, I have stated in several posts that while our Condi's may not be on the phone with their big guy, I am guessing there are lower level officials both in America and in Iran trying to find some wiggle room for negotiations. I am onboard with your assessment that some B-List politicians in Iran, and certainly the Iranian public, are potential allies, despite Ahmadinejhad's bluster. The problem is with HIS bluster, where there is smoke, there is fire, and the clock is ticking.

So, Steve, what is your solution to the Iraq problem?

:boxedin: Darth...HELP!

OK. I'll take a crack at it. If I was running the show I would...

1) Make an overt show of searching for Osama, justifying increased expense and manpower by selling to the public that his influence is on the rebound in Afghanistan. An enormous carrot on the stick would have to be offered to Pakistan, without pissing India off, since it seems OBL is there, if alive.

2) Draw Saudi Arabia into defending Lebanon against the Iranian-backed Syrians, and therebye involve the Saudi's into direct negotiations with Israel with the common goal to make the Gaza Strip a Palestinian utopia, and stepping stone for a Palestinian state, which would of course eventually include lands in Judea-Samaria.

3) Hold the UN to a much higher standard with the help from other nations, to improve our world image. Exploit the Coffe Annon oil-for-food scandal and other UN scandals and apathy in Africa with the same outrage that the left in America reserve for the right. They need to be more accountable and have more teeth.

4) We need some goddamn agreement with Russia and China to legislate change, with force, in Iraq. Without them, we cannot do all the heavy lifting, or garner assistance from other nations. Plus, the key to safely castrating Kim Jung Il is through China.

You asked.

[Tony]

This is good news. The christian-supremacist right, like the white-supremacist right, need to be to marginalized. Both for the health of this country and for the health of the republican party.

[SezMe]

Steve, sounds like a plan worth a try...but we are derailing the thread and it is, alas, my doing. :o

Now, back to the Falwell for President discussion. (Oops, somethin's amiss. Now the smilie page won't load. Put smile smilie here.)

[steverino]

Steve, sounds like a plan worth a try...but we are derailing the thread and it is, alas, my doing. :o

Now, back to the Falwell for President discussion. (Oops, somethin's amiss. Now the smilie page won't load. Put smile smilie here.)

Hey, Sez, your boss know you're screwing around? It's only Monday.:(

[steverino]

Steve, sounds like a plan worth a try...but we are derailing the thread and it is, alas, my doing. :o

Now, back to the Falwell for President discussion. (Oops, somethin's amiss. Now the smilie page won't load. Put smile smilie here.)

Here. You can have some of mine...

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[Zep]

I've got to be honest here. I don't know what the correct course of action is. I worry about simply leaving Iraq. That said I'm not certain that Iraq is a priority or that it ever was. Full disclosure: I've argued for years that it was. You can blame me, in part, for supporting the war.

Secure our ports.
Secure sensitive targets like Nuclear facilities.
Prepare to handle large scale disasters. 9/11 proved beyond any doubt that we are woefully incapable of dealing with such disasters. Remember that what happened in Louisiana was both predicted and was a major priority for FEMA. Our failure there revealed very systemic problems and a refusal to focus on serious issues raised by 9/11.Anyone who I believe will make a serious attempt to better prepare us at home will likely get my vote.An honest man. Seriously, why not run yourself as a conservative candidate?

But of course, being honest, you will now get NOWHERE in politics! ;)

[Zep]

Yes, by political-rhetorical standards I am a "flip-flopper".Whereas the neocons are simply floppers. ;)

The ability to take new information on board later, and make properly reasoned changes of thought and direction as a result, is the mark of good leadership. Of course, do that TOO MUCH and you are an opportunist who blows with the wind of public opinion (like our own dearly beloved garden-gnome PM).

[RandFan]

By the way, I must protest the thread title. These guys are not looking for a neocon candidate, they're looking for a certified Christianist candidate.It's a fair cop. Yeah, I conflated Neo-con with right wing evangelical.

They all look the same to me.

:boxedin:

[RandFan]

Whereas the neocons are simply floppers. ;)

The ability to take new information on board later, and make properly reasoned changes of thought and direction as a result, is the mark of good leadership. Of course, do that TOO MUCH and you are an opportunist who blows with the wind of public opinion (like our own dearly beloved garden-gnome PM).Great post. I concur.

[Azure]

This is good news. The christian-supremacist right, like the white-supremacist right, need to be to marginalized. Both for the health of this country and for the health of the republican party.

I pray that we get back to the days where religion never played a part in politics.

:D

[Mycroft]

I like it. :)

I'm still leaning toward Obama. I found out last week that my conservative Mother-in-law also likes Obama. Damn. Ok, it's anecdotal but perhaps something big is on the horizon.

...

I think this time around I might change party affiliations and support Rudolph W. Giuliani. I figure being a New York Republican is almost like being a Democrat, and since the Dems aint offering up anyone I like, he's the closest I'll get.

[Zep]

Run yourself, Mycroft! You know enough about it, and like Randfan, you have a reasonably realistic head on your shoulders...but that's either a blessing or a curse in politics, of course! ;)

[Mycroft]

Run yourself, Mycroft! You know enough about it, and like Randfan, you have a reasonably realistic head on your shoulders...but that's either a blessing or a curse in politics, of course! ;)

Hehe, I always did want to test that saying about absolute power....Mwahahahaha!!!

[Zep]

Hehe, I always did want to test that saying about absolute power....Mwahahahaha!!!So what can we conclude about God's power, hmmm? :)

No, seriously. I'm fully aware that you hold conservative views, as does Randfan, and they are not my political views at all. But many people, myself included, would be seriously relieved if people of your calibre DID make themselves available as conservative candidates in American politics.

No-one expects office-holders to be perfection, but they do expect them to have an honest go at trying.

[SezMe]

I agree with Zep. Thoughtful conservatives should have a strong voice in American politics...."thoughtful" being the operative word. Idealogues like Dobson do a disservice to the conservative perspective.

The views of RandFan and Mycroft, however much I may disagree with them at times, should be in play. Asshats like Falwell should be rejected by thoughtful conservatives at every turn.

[delphi_ote]

I have this prediction that Giuliani will take a tough Neocon-esque foreign policy approach as he steps out into the national stage. He'll have to play up his tough guy image to round up voters in the Republican base. I can't see how else he can hope to win the primary. Foreign policy is really the only area where he doesn't already have a record that isn't going to piss off the Republican base, because he doesn't have a foreign policy record. He can define himself however he chooses there. His record on crime and 9/11 posterboy status would both play well with a hawkish image.

Since even McCain has already ducked toward the religious right, I don't think Giuliani stands a snowball's chance in Hell with them. I don't think his past policies are going to play well with the fiscal conservatives either. The guy can capture the middle and would make an interesting candidate in the election, but I just don't see how he plans to win the primaries.

[Mephisto]

I agree with Zep. Thoughtful conservatives should have a strong voice in American politics...."thoughtful" being the operative word. Idealogues like Dobson do a disservice to the conservative perspective.

The views of RandFan and Mycroft, however much I may disagree with them at times, should be in play. Asshats like Falwell should be rejected by thoughtful conservatives at every turn.

And I agree with SezMe and Zep. Both RandFan and Mycroft have shown enough critical-thinking skills that I could easily trust them not to push creationism or the notion that hanging the Ten Commandments in schools would stop school violence or teen pregnancy.

I think it's hilarious that Dante Alighieri created a special place in Hell for panderers, and that the right-wing religious voter base can't see past the flags and crosses being waved in their faces to know what's being done to them.

Of course, critical thought could be a hinderance in American politics. ;)

[RandFan]

Thanks Mephisto, Zep and Sezme. I appreciate the sentiment. I should point out though that I'm socially liberal. I'm a libertarian. I'm for the legalizing of drugs, ending the stupid drug war, legaizing prostitution, keeping abortion legal, gay rights, seperation of church and state and I'm largely against obsenity laws. Also, contrary to my libertarinism I'm for some degree of regulation and I'm leaning very strongly in favor of universal health care at the moment. Especially for children since they don't have any say so or opportunity to ensure that they have health care. I don't think they should suffer because of their parents situation. JMO.

Finally, I caught hell for 8 years defending Bill Clinton agains family and freinds when I thought the critisism of him was unwarrented. I'm fond of that period. It was very good to me. I'm not sure how much Clinton contributed but looking back I don't have any complaints. I didn't vote for Bill btw.

I'm campaigning for Obama at the moment so who knows what the hell my ideology is. :)

[SezMe]

Jeebus, RandFan, don't tell anybody we're in bed together! But trying to get that Obama guy into the sack with us is just ......

[a_unique_person]

I agree with Zep. Thoughtful conservatives should have a strong voice in American politics...."thoughtful" being the operative word. Idealogues like Dobson do a disservice to the conservative perspective.

The views of RandFan and Mycroft, however much I may disagree with them at times, should be in play. Asshats like Falwell should be rejected by thoughtful conservatives at every turn.

Can't remember the candidate, but a piece in our local paper was on a Republican who was conservative, decent, and lost. He rubbed the extremist conservatives the wrong way. The two way squeeze, and his principles that meant he would not shift to the right to get votes, meant he knew he would lose. State that started with an "I"?

[Lurker]

You can blame me, in part, for supporting the war.


It's not Bush's fault, it's Randfan's fault. Excellent, now I can hate you. :)

I was never for the Iraq invasion but now that we are there I think we need to stick it out a year or two more. We need to give it a little more chance IMO otherwise we will see something far worse than Saddam as West Iran rises.

Lurker