No–for those of you who have been asking–FIC will not be making an endorsement in the presidential election. Our flagship organization does not make endorsements and our PAC only endorses in state, not federal, elections. As for me personally, I have been approached by two campaigns, but I am not yet supporting any candidate.

“Fine,” I’m hearing, “but what about our fellow FIC members? Where are they?” We haven’t polled them, but I can offer some anecdotal evidence.

The first thing to jump out at me are those of you supporting Ron Paul. Perhaps this should not surprise me, since we discovered during the 2006 primary a number of Ned Lamont voters who oppose both the Iraq War and same-sex “marriage.” Connecticut’s Ron Paul voters are thinking along the lines of a blog I posted last March:

It would be too much to say that because the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 Connecticut legalized same-sex unions in 2005. But there is no denying that an anti-Iraq War backlash played a powerful role at Connecticut polls in both 2004 and 2006–leading eventually to the defeat of two veteran Republican congressmen and the election of Democrat supermajorities in both houses of our legislature. Yes, Republican Rell and pro-war Lieberman are obvious exceptions to the wave that hit nearly everyone else, but the question remains: How different might our legislature be today if we had not invaded Iraq–or, rather, if the war had gone better? And how much further along would the pro-life and pro-family causes be–both in Connecticut and nationally?

But even the mainstream media now reports that a successful “surge” has led to improved possibilities for both Iraq and the political future of conservatism. And regardless of whether this remains the case, most of our members do not plan to vote for Ron Paul. 

What about Rudy Guiliani? I know one FIC supporter who admires his toughness and trusts that he would keep his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the courts. Indeed, in many ways, Guiliani is one of the most impressive political figures to emerge on the American scene in the last twenty-five years. Nevertheless, most of you shared my negative reaction to the news that Connecticut’s top GOP lawmakers are supporting their party’s only pro-abortion presidential candidate.

I have not heard a single word from any of you about John McCain. I also have not heard anything–or anything positive, anyway–about any of the Democratic candidates. Ditto for Hunter, Keyes and Tancredo. On Fred Thompson, many of you were initially enthusiastic but the excitement seems to have dropped off.

That leaves Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney and most of you seem to be supporting one or the other. Romney supporters are telling me that their man is the only across-the-board Reaganesque conservative and that Huckaby is an economic liberal. Huckabee supporters tell me Romney’s a flip-flopper who could have done more against same-sex “marriage” and that his Mormon faith will cause the loss of crucial votes in the South.

On Romney and same-sex “marriage,” it’s worth noting that our peer organization in his home state, the Massachusetts Family Institute, holds him in high regard. And on Huckabee, it is worth noting a nice-guy authenticity to the man that could play well in Connecticut. It even earned him a favorable mention from liberal columnist Colin McEnroe:

I like Mike [Huckabee] even though I don’t agree with him about many things. He seems so nice! He opposes the right to abortion, gay marriage, civil unions and gun control in the nicest possible way. He seems to lean creationist, although his current position is that he can’t imagine why anybody needs to know — in order to vote for him — whether he believes humans evolved from monkeys. He appears decent, as opposed to Rudy Giuliani, who believes what I believe on every single one of the above issues but is obviously a fraudulent creep.

Of course, Colin also says that Huckabee has no organization in Connecticut and that a Huckabee victory here would be “crazy.” But he goes on to note that crazy primary results are a Connecticut tradition.

Romney, meanwhile, does have a state organization that will now be co-chaired by Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton.

Connecticut’s primary will be held on February 5th.

171 Responses to “The Presidential Election and Connecticut’s Social Conservatives”

  1. on 08 Feb 2008 at 2:20 pmDave

    Speaking of Honest Abe, the story of how he navigated his candidacy through a brokered convention bears striking parallels to what may be unfolding before us in this year’s campaign. For a historical review, see

  2. on 08 Feb 2008 at 4:43 pmDoug


    While I mean no offense to any other denomination, Jesus Christ founded one Church. All the rest came later, or splintered off from the one He founded. The beliefs of the Church are facts, and the belief in that they are facts is called faith, including in absolute truth, untainted by current moral relativism, or pseudo-scientific explanations from the very beings who either deny or attempt to dilute the God who created them. Faith requires humility, as Jesus said, “like a child.” When I was a child, my mother had another phrase. She called it “being too big for your britches.” Even what we consider to be “fact” can be wrong, and overdone. As St. Bernard said, “Humility is the mother of salvation.”

    If you have been following the rants back and forth between Tricia and I, you well know my stance on Mitt Romney. I think he’s a phony, a weathervane, no true conservative, and at best, and I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here, a “moderate”(as opposed to a true liberal).

    Furthermore, I find it imbecilic and an upsetting deja vue that the conservative pundits all coalesced behind this guy. Romney is no conservative. Neither is George W. Bush, but this year, just like they did in 2000, they waved their magic wands, “poof,” and transformed a liberal (or moderate) into a “conservative,” and ironically, in both years, to avoid McCain. We all saw how Bush turned out, and I predicted that about him then. I was luke warm on him at best. Ditto with Romney. All the conservative talking heads had to pick what they deemed the lesser of the offered evils, and Romney won all the marbles. Had he won, I think he would have governed in similar fashion to Bush, and I do not mean that as a compliment.

    Endorsements are about as important as an elevator in an outhouse. What does it say when a moderate like Mitt Romney gets endorsed by the conservative magazine, National Review,” but flat out rejected by the conservative Boston Herald-American? What does it say when John McCain gets endorsed and supported by a liberal (although, granted, not as liberal as some) Democrat Senator like Joe Lieberman, and also by the extremely conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)? All much to do about nothing. The only endorsements that matter in the end occur in little booths on the first Tuesday of November. Lest we ever forget the infamous press headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman.”

    That all said, I was kind of sorry to see ‘the Ken-doll” go. Perhaps he can find a job somewhere now as a news anchor. All the spectators in the nosebleed seats keep trying play Monday morning quarterback and dictate who should or should not get out. I think each and every candidate has the right to stay in as long as he wants to, or until the party formally nominates someone. And even then, there is a petition process. Those who want free government should not complain when they get it. Romney has as much right to be in the race as Huckabee, McCain and anyone else.

    I also have to laugh at the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) charade. I have been to several CPACs. I don’t ever recall seeing any of these overnight “conservative” wonders, like Mitt, Rudy or McCain there before. (Love him or hate him, Vice President Cheney only missed one or two years, and he doesn’t have to go around invoking Ronald Regan and talking about his conservatism every five minutes!) Rudy went there last year for his own selfish purposes, and lost anyway. Ditto with Romney. He’s there again now, possibly because he already committed, and/or because he is planning another run in 2012. But Rudy’s gone now…nothing in it for him anymore. McCain blew it off last year, but now he is there and wants to kiss and make up because he needs votes from the conservative base he so hates, just like he did with Jerry Falwell at Liberty University, who just a couple years before, was “an agent of intolerance.” And now, after ignoring CPAC for 8 years, Dubya suddenly shows up. Why? To preserve what’s left of the farce he can call a legacy to fill a library dedicated to himself! Only in America does a President whose favorability ratings barely scratch 30% gets to retire for life on the public dime and have a “golden calf” built for him that is camouflaged with the euphemism, “library.” Liars and frauds. They all make me wretch. I always said that the only things found in the middle of the road are dead skunks and long yellow streaks, but our electorate best wake up, and head for the middle of the road and soon. By middle of the road, I don’t mean in terms of ideology, but reality. We seem to be currently predominantly bifurcated into two extremes, cynically apathetic and naively Pollyanna, and in today’s world, one extreme is as dangerous to our national survival as the other. We have to start paying more attention and roll up our sleeves, put down the sports page, shut off the brainless TV reality show, and become both informed and involved. On the other hand, we also best learn to distinguish a shark from a bunny rabbit before reaching our hand out to pet it. I have been and am involved in politics. There are many politicians I like, but very few I trust.

    I’ll tell you something else, I personally couldn’t care less who my President is in terms of sex, race, faith, etc.. I’m looking for principle, ability and leadership (and yes, conservatism). That all said, no, we are not ready for a Mormon, a black, a woman, a Latino, or any other category of person that derives from whatever is deemed “majority.” Why? Because we keep ranting and dwelling on being Mormon, a black, a woman and a Latino. For that matter, David, I wouldn’t even care if my President was gay, as long as he or she didn’t force the gay agenda on me. When we shut up with this nonsense and stop making them issues, then we will be ready. And likewise, there are people out there who only vote for who looks like them. Some woman had the audacity to accuse Oprah Winfrey of choosing skin color over gender because she endorsed Obama and not Hillary. What ever happened to issues? Is this a presidential race or a beauty contest? How many precious weeks did we waste dwelling on Romney’s religious faith, or some inane remark Bill Clinton made about Jesse Jackson? That was all time that could have been devoted to issues, but we couldn’t handle it, which is why most lemmings wandering on almost any “Main Street” can’t name their own member of Congress, but can keep you apprised in real time as to Britney Spears’s latest dysfunctional antics. Personally, I think voters should be required to take IQ tests first. I am sick and tired of these dolts canceling out my vote over matters of dimples and pimples instead of issues and ability. I’m a Roman Catholic of Irish and Italian descent, and I wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for either Chris Dodd or Rosa DeLauro. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard somebody voted for a candidate because they seemed “nice,” or had a nice smile, or was of the same gender, faith or race as them, or whatever. All drivel, and a vast, deplorable and cavalier waste of a precious right that millions around the globe desperately wish they had.

    I love my country dearly, but I am sad to say , it is still just a big, 232 year old adolescent that thinks it’s mature, thinks it has made it, and thinks it has all the answers, but in reality, is still wet behind the ears and still has much more growing up to do.

    And time is running out.


  3. on 08 Feb 2008 at 4:48 pmMiddletownPete

    Dr. Dobson is so quick to tell us which candidates he opposes. Perhaps he ought to find a congressional candidate that he can support and help get that person elected.

    Here’s my response:
    “If you’re too busy to go to Iowa and organize house parties, or go to New Hampshire and knock on doors, you have chosen not to participate, so try to refrain from the negative editorials.”

    Where was Dobson when Huckabee needed him in South Carolina? He is not the only Christian who conducted a pseudo-boycott of this presidential election. Dobson has not shown himself to be much of scholar on presidential politics.

    Boycotting is not an effective election day tactic.

  4. on 08 Feb 2008 at 5:01 pmDoug


    Harry Truman once said, and correctly so, that a Democrat will vote for another Democrat before ever voting for a Republican who just sounds like a Democrat.

    I wish John McCain well in his arrogant basking in his precious15 minutes of shame while simultaneously flirting with the left and spitting on the right. The unaffiliated/centrist voters are truly what decide every election, but only after first securing the candidate’s respective (liberal or conservative) base of his or her party.

    Come Election Day, like any good roast when the bell rings on the oven, stick a fork in him…he’ll be done.


  5. on 09 Feb 2008 at 7:12 pmDoug

    At this writing, and with 100% of the precincts reporting, Huckabee beat McCain in the Kansas GOP caucus, 60-24. I think Ron Paul Got 15. As usual nobody is even discussing Alan Keyes.

    Prior to the caucus, the delegate count (with 1191 needed to win) is McCain 724, Huckabee 196.

    At CPAC today, Huckabee gave a rousing speech (one of his best) that silently attacked McCain on his CFR membership. Huck denounced international tribunals, the Kyoto Treaty, the Law of the Seas Treaty, etc.. Among his talking points, he was strong on national sovereignty and of course, strong on life/family issues.

    Meanwhile, while not officially backing out yet, Ron Paul is now giving signals that he is considering it. He is facing a primary battle in his Congressional district, and let’s face, in the prez race, it just ain’t happenin’ for him.

    I voted for Alan Keyes and I stand by my vote. Like Duncan Hunter, he is solid on every issue for me, but like Duncan Hunter, his chances fall somewhere between dim and dismal.

    With 27 states left to go, Huck just might have a chance, albeit a squeaker. In his SCPAC speech today he unequivocally denied any consideration of pulling out. I believe him. He’s here to stay.

    There are issues that I disagree with him on, but if Huck is the nod, I will vote for him. John McCain will only drive me to the Constitution Party.

    (Side bar, regarding the Constitution Party. I recently heard that Joe Zdoncyck, State Chairman of the Concerned Citizens Party, the Constitution Party’s State affiliate is now gravely ill in a convalescent home in Wolcott. Please remember him in your prayers.)

    I haven’t seen what states are left, but I think which way the sway will be by color: red, blue or purple. McCain will likely win the blues, Huck the reds, and the purples are up for grabs.

    Contrary to what they say, I don’t see the talk radio folks taking as harsh a stand on Huck as McCain. They fear, distrust and disagree with both, but with McCain, there is widespread and very personal vitriol from conservatives. That strong emotion does not exist toward Huckabee. That could be as much a factor as Hillary vs. Obama. They are equally far left, but Hillary is mean to the core, and does not hide it well, and her latest antics only display those traits even further. Say what you will of Obama, but he is an amiable guy. Issues of McCain’s infamous temper are again coming forward, and certainly, we went after Mitt Romney’s jugular vein above and beyond what is called for in campaigning. I suspect Romney voters won’t forget that anytime soon, either.

    If McCain gets the nod, some names being thrown out include Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Huckabee. The Huck camp denies this, but I can’t see Huck as McCain’s veep. Huck only ads to McCain’s problem with conservatives. McCain has given us a clue, though. He came right out and said that he does not care about geography to balance a ticket, but is more concerned with somebody you could easily take over at a moment’s notice. I translate that to mean foreign policy and defense matters.

    I’m thinking Rudy. Rudy already denied that, but tactically, he should, as good cover for now. They both love each other, and who else is big on the national defense side? Rudy is no conservative either, but remember, the right has already come out against Huckabee. In the beginning, the right, including Christians groups, were abandoning their principles and fawning all over Rudy. Even Pat Robertson came out for him. (See what I said before about endorsements? Worthless! Ditto with National Right to Life’s endorsement of Fred Thompson, and NRL even admitted that viability was a big factor in their decision.) Although I did not hear him say it, supposedly, McCain already said he would not seek a second term if reelected. With his strong ego, I don’t see Rudy playing second fiddle to anybody, but given McCain’s age, his statement about not seeking re-election, and whatever backroom deal they brokered, I can also see Rudy patiently waiting it out for 4 years to try for a comeback, and next time, as Vice President, that much farther up the ladder, and with a better resume. Rudy is no dummy. He is as much tactician as he is an egotist.

    McCain is leaning on his defense expertise, yet while he supported the surge, he opposed Guantanamo and waterboarding. Several people have already questioned his mental stability, temper and the fact that his finger would be on THE button. Count me in that group as well. In that regard, Huck’s amiability would be another factor that could play either way.

    The down side is that current polls now show McCain beating Hillary in almost every poll, although by the margin of error. I think that says more about Hillary’s drop than McCain’s rise. McCain loses against Obama in every poll. Huckabee loses against Hillary and Obama in every poll.

    But if per chance, Hick were to overtake McCain, and granted, it’s a long shot, his numbers could rise to where McCain’s numbers are now, just like how McCain absorbed Rudy’s numbers when he dropped out.

    And again, the right has the same gripes with Huckabee as it does with McCain, minus the personal vitriol.

    In the end, that could make a difference.

    Somebody once said that politics is Hollywood for ugly people, but the fact is that physical appearance, as well as personality and charisma are huge factors. That is what helped Romney, and that is a big factor in Obama being beloved while people are bailing off the USS Hillary as it sinks like a stone. If nothing else, Huck’s personal likeability could sway voters away from McCain. Like Hillary, even when McCain tries to be nice, he can’t pull it off. He just looks like a rotten, nasty guy trying to seem pleasant. It’s like splashing perfume on manure. The end result is stinky manure that also smells like perfume. For less informed voters in particular, and sally, there are many of them, personality will be a huge factor, and Huckabee plays an audience about as well as that guitar of his.

    What I do like about Huckabee, I like enough to vote for him if he does get the nod. Otherwise, given a McCain nod, he can just keep courting those independents and Democrats he loves so well, but like with a teenage summer romance, that love fest will be fleeting at best.

    And in the end, the sway of affiliated partisan registration ha just swayed from republican to Democrat by at least 15%.

    And on Super Tuesday, 15 million Democrats votes, and only 8 million Republicans voted.

    This is all a fun game to play, but like I said before, now it’s pretty much time to reshift our focus to the Congressional (and state) races, and maybe, maybe, the 2012 presidential race.

    For Republicans in 2008, much like Marlon Brando how was once told in the movie “On the Waterfront,” “This just ain’t your night, kid.”


  6. on 10 Feb 2008 at 11:34 amDoug

    Shame on Texas Governor Rick Perry for telling Mike Huckabee to get out of the race.

    Perry is a CFR hack.

    It was his former boss, another CFR sycophant, George W. Bush, (who was Texas Governor when Perry was Lt. Governor), who started the North American Union on its way.

    It is Rick Perry who is currently behind the NAFTA Super Highway, being built in Texas, that will take millions of acres of private property from Texans via eminent domain to build this North American Union gateway, which will be several football fields wide and will be connecting the US with Canada and Mexico after our borders are supposedly going to be formally erased in 2010. A checkpoint and toll station will be built on the highway in Kansas City. Almost like a foreign embassy, the property under and surrounding that station will be given to Mexico, and the toll station will be staffed by Mexicans. Mexico will actually own a little piece of Kansas City on the NAFTA Super Highway. The North American Union flag has already been designed and the “Amero” is already being set up to replace our not so coincidentally devalued dollar. We are already giving Mexico $200 billion (as John “CFR” McCain would say, “That’s billion with a ‘b’!”) to improve their infrastructure, while our bridges, such as the recent one that collapsed in Minneapolis, killing several people, continue to rot away, ignored.

    Rick Perry originally backed Giuliani, who is not a Council on Foreign Relations member, but was hired and made senior partner to his law firm, Bracewell and Giuliani, just three weeks after Bush made the NAU agreement with Fox and Martin in Waco Texas in March, 2005. Giuliani’s law firm has a 50-year contract with CINTRAS, the Spanish firm building the NAFTA Super Highway in Texas.

    Now Perry is backing CFR member John McCain.

    Politics is like a magic show. Little of what you really see is what is really happening, or at least for the reasons that you are made to believe. The real action is what goes on behind the scenes.

    And in that regard, it is little wonder that so much the CFR and the Trilateral Commission do is so secretive.

    We need to stop fawning over John McCain’s war record as a hero. That was then. This is now. Like Benedict Arnold, he is a hero turned traitor.

    McCain wants to keep talking defense.

    How safe will we be when our borders are erased, and “illegal” immigrants are now just “migrants” and al Quaeda and other terrorists can even more easily blend in with them to enter our country?

    How safe will we be when we are in a defense pact with Mexico and Canada and have to defend them as well?

    Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee spoke strongly on several key points regarding preserving American sovereignty at CPAC.

    Forget about all this talk about a Constitutional amendment regarding marriage.

    How safe will we be when a North American tribunal rules over our Constitution, usurps our own courts and tramples all our liberties?

    John McCain is a dangerous globalist. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    Ditto with Hillary Clinton. Bill is still a CFR member. So is Bill Richardson. So Is Fred Thompson. For that matter, so are Joe Lieberman (McCain’s good friend) and Chris Dodd.

    The Texas primary will give either McCain or Huckabee some big momentum. That will be held on March 4th.

    Human Events did a big piece on McCain this week and his record. He has previously given completely opposite statements to his stance on abortion and Roe vs. wade in South Carolina and in San Francisco. I will admit that Mike Huckabee is not perfect on every issue, but he is perfect and he has been consistent on pro-life/pro-family issues. In that regard especially, we have no other choice.

    Ron Paul is (probably) soon getting out (right now, he is only hinting, due to a potential primary battle in his Congressional district) and Alan Keyes is politically a practical non-entity. We need to rally behind Mike Huckabee. If McCain gets the nod, we need to back whatever candidate is nominated by the Constitution Party, and yes, that might well be Alan Keyes (Despite consistent rumors to the contrary, Ron Paul keeps denying that he will run on the Constitution Party ticket. I believe him.).

    The CP will nominate their national candidate in April in Kansas City, yes…Kansas City, while it’s still (all) part of the USA! How ironic is that?

    That will be the only even remotely viable (and it is remote) option for pro-life/pro-family, Christian, conservative, moral traditionalist, patriotic Americans.

    Please reflect on this little historic gem of wisdom, currently posted on the home page of Alan Keyes’s campaign web site:

    “If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”
    (George Washington)

    Kudos to CT GOP Chair Chris Healy, who on Channel 3’s “Face The State” today told Dennis House that the CT GOP already has candidates (soon to be announced) lined up to take on Democrat Representatives John Larsen in the 1st District and Rosa DeLauro in the 3rd District. Let’s just hope that they are quality candidates of name recognition and electablity, and not just another patriotic sacrificial lamb with more ideals than ability.

    I say again, I have no illusions about our chances in the Presidential race, but overall, this fight isn’t over yet. We must still fight the good fight in the Congressional and state races. In military parlance, if your enemy has a strong front line, implement a flanking maneuver!

    But whatever we do, we must not give up this fight! Far too much is at stake in this election year!

    “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

    There is some dispute about who actually said that famous quote, whether it was John Adams or Thomas Jefferson. It doesn’t matter. The point is still both significant, and relevant, then, and now.


  7. on 10 Feb 2008 at 12:27 pmDoug

    We currently have the European Union.

    The North American Union is being built, as a semi-hibernating America obsesses over sports stats, drools over scantily clad degenerate and dysfunctional pop celebrities, and gazes in awe over “Survivor” and “American Idol.”

    Similar future “unions” are already being planned and proposed for Asia, and even the Middle East.

    We have the United Nations.

    We have the World Bank.

    We have the World Trade Organization (WTO).

    We have NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and various other regional international trade treaties.

    We have the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission.

    We have the KYOTO Treaty, which penalizes a very green USA, while giving heavy polluters like China a free pass.

    We have the Law of the Seas Treaty, appropriately known a “LOST,” which willfully gives away all rights of 200 miles of ocean off our coasts, not only stripping us of sovereignty over our own valuable sea routes for trade and mining rights for development, but also avenues for our own naval defense.

    We have multi-national corporations.

    Etc, etc..

    And we have people, like John McCain, who and subtly embrace all this shrinking of our globe, this consolidation of power, and this affront to American ideals and liberties.

    And then, we have the Book of Revelations, 17, 12-15:

    “And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the beast; they will make war on the Lamb, and the lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

    We never see beach erosion as it happens, only after it’s too late. The principle of incrementalism in politics, be it local, state, antional, or global, is as key to every grain of sand, undetected by the human eye, but present nevertheless, that washes out to sea with each outgoing wave.

    A sage riddle asks us, “How do you eat an elephant?” the answer is: “One bite at a time.” We are like the frog, unknowingly sitting in a pan of cool water, atop the burner of a stove, slowly turned up to a gradual boil, and so too, we will slowly but ever gradually succumb unless we jump out of the hot water.

    The incrementalism of biblically prophesied, evil, and anti-American globalism did not happen over night, but it is continuing, and thanks to the Revelations of John, and no, I don’t mean “McCain” we know how it will all end.

    I suppose our remaining choice is how fast or slow it will end, and which side will we be on. I think that choice is given to us as a gift from God. It is a gift we may not always have forever, but it is a gift of great significance while we do still have it.

    And that gift is called “elections.”

    We don’t need a “globalist” in the Oval Office.

    We need an American.

    Now, more than ever.


  8. on 10 Feb 2008 at 3:24 pmDavid

    Thanks for the Truman quote, it just goes to show that politicians have been spouting cliched nonsense. As far as your history of Christianity, you repeat what you were taught, that’s fine. Aren’t you the one who constantly says “a lie oft repeated” blah blah blah? Believe what you will thankfully we have progressed far enough that your church can’t force us all to submit to it’s teachings, or have we? Watching what is happening in Spain and Italy right now I wonder.

    Regarding McCain, I’ve decided I want him to win the election. Whoever is elected will inherit a total disaster which will take more than 4 years to even begin to correct. Since the American people are completely impatient the next President will likely only have one term, so if he’s a Republican, even if only in name as some claim, they aren’t going to vote in another one for years and years. That is, as the saying goes, a good thing. (In my opinion of course) Plus, I would hope that some watching McCain butchered by the “conservative” members of his own party will finally wake up to see what a dangerous force they have unleashed by not paying attention to the “fringe”. I think the latest Clinton antics have finally opened the eyes of some former supporters. I hope so anyway.

    Doug you mentioned a third party perhaps replacing the Repubs for conservatives (I think it was you). Where do you see that coming from, an already existing one like the Constitution Party (if they still exist) or the Ron Paul machine, or whole different direction? And do you think the time has really come for a third party to challenge the two big ones at a national level?

  9. on 11 Feb 2008 at 10:21 pmDoug


    See, this is exactly what I mean. You make outlandish, ridiculous remarks, like about my Church making people subject to its rulings, and then when I respond, you will inevitably deny that is what you said or meant. If you can even remotely do with a fiberglass rod and some nylon string what you often do with your manipulation of verbiage, clearly, you must be quite an accomplished fisherman. To my knowledge, my Church is not forcing anyone to be subjected to its rules. We’re not the ones running around chanting with our tongues twirling in our mouths and lopping heads off with swords to coerce conversion, not that that radical (and true “dangerous fringe”) minority represents its faith. We have a much subtler marketing approach, so stop watching so much “Rosie” and stop filling your head with so much gobbledygook about “radical Christianity,” before you also soon try to convince me that Bush, Cheney and Rove conspired to hit the Twin Towers and Pentagon on September 11th. And the emphasis of my previous statement in one of my previous posts, which you seem to have missed with your biased eyes against organized religion, was more focused on the individual; that being on faith and humility as opposed to arrogant pride and the abuse of intellect.

    And you lost me regarding what is happening in Spain and Italy right now. What specifically are you referring to? That is another one of your tactics. You go cryptic on me, and then when I press you for a complete answer, you don’t produce. Please break with tradition and actually elaborate this time. Or is that a fly in the ointment?

    You are also footloose and fancy free with the word “fringe.” Most of this country is conservative. The “fringe” folks are the ones committed to violence, sedition and anarchy, and both sides are beleaguered with (a minority of) them. Someone confident in their views and not wandering in the middle is not necessarily fringe.

    As for “butchering,” guess who cut off Bob Casey’s microphone at the Democratic Convention in 1992 because they so bristled at having a pro-lifer among them. And guess who “uninvited” Waterbury Mayor Mike Jarjura from attending a pro-Hillary event at the last minute on his own green after he gave Rowland a city job. Which faction steals conservative newspapers from college campuses and shouts and boos down conservative speakers, and throws pies in their faces? How’s that “compassionate” Democrat party working out right about now for Joe Lieberman, hmmmm….? How about the Democrat caucus in the General Assembly, who recently tried to strip Senator Hartley of all her privileges for casting vote against her own side recently? And WE are the “dangerous” ones? Go ahead, David. I’m waiting. Tell me all about how patient, understanding, sensitive, and NOT SO DANGEROUS your side is. Your use of the term “butchering’ is as loose as your use of the term, “dangerous fringe,” but whatever you choose to call it, it also exists on both sides, so when you throw around phrases like “conservatives butchering McCain,” it’s kind of like spitting into the wind, so I hope you are not overly shocked at what comes back at you. Shock belongs to Stern. Sound bites belong to Leno. Find your own shtick, David.

    Regarding third party, that was me who brought it up. I think this race will generate some big third party momentum, but I don’t think we will see any significant results this year. It’s getting late. The Constitution Party is still around and it is the third largest party in the country. Its success, thus far though, has been nil. The America First Party is attempting its third resurrection. The Libertarians don’t seem to get much traction, and I don’t pay much attention to the Greens, or this so called Unity Party, if it is even organized now, but ditto with them as well.

    I suspect their numbers will grow in registrations from disenchanted voters from both sides jumping ship and seeking a new home. A new third party or two might even emerge. The Constitution Party will inevitably have a candidate in 08 and I suspect their numbers will rise higher than usual, but third parties typically don’t go too far, not even in good years for them, like The Reform Party with Perot in 92.

    Most of them are amateurs. Typically, they are composed of idealistic patriots who wake up one morning, pour themselves a cup of coffee and think, “Hmm I think I’d like to be a Senator today,” and away they go. They know and/or practice little of politicking on a professional level, be it cultivating a bench, fundraising, getting their message out, etc.. Politics is about name recognition and money. If you are unable or unwilling to develop both of those, and preferably with a ten-year plan, you’re done before you start. Half the problems facing third parties they bring on themselves from inexperience and stubbornness. The other half of their problems are built into a rigged system by the colluding Democrat and Republican parties. For all their hot air, the one issue they are truly bipartisan on is keeping third parties out. Neither party wants the competition. Some states are worse than others in that regard. Simply obtaining, and worse yet, maintaining ballot access is a deplorable dog and pony show that is inevitably making our nation’s founding fathers roll in their graves in extreme torment. I find it very dismaying and incredible that such affronts to liberty are so conspicuously entrenched in our country. Then I think of slavery and abortion and my feet are back on the ground in the real world again.

    I think the level of disgust on the conservative side now is such that it will give third parties a boost, but not enough to make a significant difference in 2008. They need to keep that momentum going a for a few years, and thus far, I haven’t seen any of them really do it. 2012 has possibilities, but they need to start work now and stay at it. They also need to first field local candidates and then groom them up through the ranks. A quality candidate has to have proven viability. If you can’t be elected as local alderman, it’s asinine to run for Congress. And if you can’t get elected after three tries, hang it up. Above all, the third parties need a really big name. People like recognition. How willing would most people be to pay money to hear a concert or see a movie from singers/actors they don’t know? Same with politics. If nothing else, John McCain has name recognition. So does Rudy Giuliani. So does Mitt Romney. Ron Paul really didn’t, but he did an admirable job of building it. Lack of name recognition, among other factors, was much of what hurt Duncan Hunter and (still), Alan Keyes.

    If something big does not blossom from a third party, be it a new or existing one, the Republican Party may rise from these ashes like a phoenix. I would hope so. Right now, the party is pretty well broken up and at or near rock bottom. The only remaining option is upward, assuming it can do it like it did after the 76 and 96 elections.

    Both parties should hop for the survival of the GOP. We need a bare minimum of two viable parties to keep our country free, and both parties have proven repeatedly through history that left in power too long, they prove Lord Acton correct and go corrupt. We can all chose our sides between Republicans and Democrats, but make no mistake about it, as free Americans, we need both parties, at least, to thrive.


  10. on 12 Feb 2008 at 2:48 amDoug


    Your apparent vitriol of my Church, and I believe, of organized religion in general as so often displayed by your comments, is in fact very often the rejection of scripture itself.

    If your pride so impedes your intellect that you really see no difference between the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels and the teachings of Jesus Christ, perhaps this passage may be helpful:

    “At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.”
    (Matthew, 11, 25-26.)

    You can’t always make complete sense of faith, David. Nor should you. There is a certain degree of mystery to it. That is why it is called faith.


  11. on 12 Feb 2008 at 4:43 pmDoug

    It’s worth noting that Huckabee does not have to hit the magical 1191 mark in delegate votes.

    All he has to do is run enough interference to block McCain from accruing that amount.

    Then the horse-trading begins and the nominee is decided at the convention.

    Given the roller coaster ride this race has been so far, I wouldn’t rule any surprises out.

    If I’m McCain right about now, I’m asking myself two hard questions:

    1.) How personally likeable am I generally perceived?

    2.) How electable am I perceived, primarily within the (conservative) base of the GOP?


  12. on 12 Feb 2008 at 5:09 pmTricia

    “Huckabee and McCain ‘respect each other. They’re both men of integrity,’ [Ed] Rollins (Huckabee’s campaign manager) said.”

    HA!! Neither showed “integrity,” or even MATURITY in their double-teaming Romney with juvenile smears, smirks and lies about Romney’s record.

    They pulled an especially SHAMEFUL scam against Romney in West Virginia. McCain and “the Huckster” colluded to eliminate Romney, who had the advantage of being by FAR THE BEST CANDIDATE for Conservatives, and for **all Americans,** IMO.

    Now we’re stuck with two mediocre Republican candidates, NEITHER of whom is **truly CONSERVATIVE** on the full range of crucial issues, as Romney is.

    It will be quite some time before I am inclined to say anything other than “a pox on both their houses” regarding McCain and Huckabee.

    Except–that if Huckabee were the Republican nominee, it would be political suicide for the party, IMO. His name will turn off those who vote based on name recognition; and his running as the “Christian leader” candidate will turn off all the millions of secularist voters.

    That would also mean that Hillary or Obama would, most probably, be appointing 2 or 3 U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

  13. on 13 Feb 2008 at 4:02 pmDoug


    “A pox on both their houses”? Pretty ironically harsh words, considering you once said I was unChristian-like for calling Romney a “liar.”

    I have never heard any substantiated proof to the widely speculated allegation and wishful thinking that Huckabee and McCain conspired against Romney in West Virginia. And if they did, why specifically West Virginia? It doesn’t even make sense. Delegate wise, West Virginia is about as helpful as a dead bolt on a screen door. It’s hardly a California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc..And even if they did, the outcome (Romney dropping out) would still be the same. For that matter, even if they did, so what? That does not constitute an ethics violation. Maybe they mutually perceived Romney as a greater threat and triangulated their strategy to knock him out. That’s politics. It’s all a big strategic chess game designed to make somebody lose. Suck it up. As for Romney as a “conservative” candidate, he had his share of baggage, too. Had a true conservative been left standing, the movement would have coalesced behind that candidate and then they would be bad mouthing Romney right now as much as they are Huckabee and McCain. If the rest of the party agreed with you that Romney was the best conservative choice, then he would be the nominee right now. The bottom line is he had his chance and he couldn’t produce, and to the limited extent that anybody’s statements played any real role in his campaign’s demise, his own numerous robotic, clumsy, inane, and contradictory statements probably hurt him more than anybody else’s remarks did. Had he been elected, he would not have been any asset to the party’s survival, either. In general, conservatism was dealt a lousy hand this year.

    Theoretically, you can choose your poison, or the lesser of two evils. A good argument can be made that either McCain or Huckabee as the nominee could finish off what’s left to the party.

    I am less than fully enthused about Huckabee too, but at least he is 100% pro life (and mentally stable). I would trust Charles Manson with a chain saw long before I would ever trust John McCain with his finger on the “nuke” button. McCain favors embryonic stem cell research and has already given contradictory statements on his stance on abortion and Roe vs. Wade, in South Carolina and in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. Huckabee is also untainted by the open borders, anti-American, anti-sovereignty, trade-give-away socialist globalists at the CFR and the UN, unlike their “Manchurian candidate,” McCain, and whoever is President in the next term will have to deal with the expansion of the North American Union and the proposed official dilution of our borders in 2010, as per the 2005 Waco agreement between the “3 stooges”: Bush, Fox and Martin.

    You can “pox” whoever you like, but no matter how you slice it, you only have two choices as a conservative: the GOP nominee, which will be either McCain or Huckabee, and most likely as it looks now, McCain, or you can vote for the Constitution Party candidate, which could well be Alan Keyes or some other lightweight.

    And in the end, it won’t matter who you vote for because the Dems will take it this year anyway. Write in Elvis Presley if that floats your boat. It won’t matter. Even if McCain does win, if you think he’s liberal now, wait until that 72-year-old man who already announced he will only seek one term gets elected, when he’s got nothing more to lose. He’ll let loose on this country like a little kid locked up alone in a candy store. Your prediction and concern regarding Hillary or Obama picking the next 2 or justices are accurate and warranted, however, I would feel almost as little solace at the prospect of McCain having that choice.

    The Prez race for us is now pretty much over for us, and the next one is four years away. Crying “Coulda, shoulda, whoulda” won’t bring it back. It is what it is, like it or not. We now need to unify and reshift our focus now onto the Congressional and state races, where we can at least neutralize the Dems and do some damage control.


  14. on 14 Feb 2008 at 12:00 amChris O'Brien

    Huckabee did not collude with Romney in any way. If anything, they will need to work together – or at least their delegates will – if there is a brokered convention.

    Bottom line though is that McCain has voted for embryonic stem cell research, trampled on free speech rights for all Americans, and has advocated military action if Iran gets nuclear technology. (other nations already have weapons that we’re nervous about, but action not necessary yet).

    At any rate, Huckabee remains optimistic and keeping faith in God about what should become of his bid for President. At the same time his supporters are contributing more to his campaign now than they have in the previous three months. They vow to stay with him up until the convention. Some can say he is hurting the party, others that if he keeps the Republican race alive, he’s earning more media attention to Republicans that would otherwise be non-existent during this campaign.

    There is still a chance Huckabee can win. In fact, I’m one of the quickly- growing number of leaders who are organizing a full-fledged war in Rhode Island and Vermont supporting Huckabee’s campaign. His pro-life and protection of marriage beliefs are without question. He is a likeable guy and very trustworthy and honest. When was the last time we elected someone you could say that about?

    If you would like to get involved, please contact me at or (203) 558-5817. Go to if you wonder about any of his positions. has ways you can link up with a local campaign.

    Chris O’Brien

  15. on 14 Feb 2008 at 12:22 amChris O'Brien


    “Except–that if Huckabee were the Republican nominee, it would be political suicide for the party, IMO. His name will turn off those who vote based on name recognition; and his running as the “Christian leader” candidate will turn off all the millions of secularist voters.”

    – You think that rag-in-my-mouth McCain can really have a logical debate with Obama? McCain says he doesn’t care about social issues, “doesn’t know much” about the econonmy, and who knows what other issues. Besides putting so much time into being Senator and wanting to cut spending, is there any other reason he’s running?? Presidents need to be more global than just balancing the budget and carrying out the war.

    He may have a shot at Clinton, but again – while clinton has plans for health care (although the wrong ones), and other topics, McCain seems to have no plan at all to anywhere.

    From what I can tell Huckabee is the logical, trustworthy candidate.

    And turn off your radio. Who cares what the people paid by Mitt Romney and try to make their own news and create a new conspiracy theory every week rather than report on it say? How many times have they been WRONG so far?

    If your weatherman is consistently wrong, don’t you usually change the channel?

  16. on 14 Feb 2008 at 4:27 pmDoug

    In 2012, there will inevitably be a new field of Republican candidates for President.

    Mitt Romney might well be one of them.

    Inevitably, at or about that time, somebody will remember that today, Valentine’s Day, 2008, Romney sold out life and family issues, as well as conservatism in general by handing all his delegates over to John McCain, who, not all that long ago, was Romney’s arch-nemesis.

    When some of these many conservatives who have no use for McCain remember that sell-out from Romney, they will be beating the drum loudly to remind everybody about it.

    Make no mistake about it, I will be one of them.


  17. on 14 Feb 2008 at 7:10 pmTricia


    I WON’T be “turn[ing] off my radio.”

    I guess you don’t listen to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin–because if you DID, you would know that they are *very seldom* “wrong.”

    It is the MSM “talking heads,” PBS pundits, and even many “pollsters” who have been proven almost consistently WRONG–saying just a few weeks ago that Giuliani and Hillary would be the candidates–erroneously predicting the outcomes of various primaries and caucuses, etc.

    Incidentally, Chris–Sean has had Huckabee as a guest many times on both his radio and FOX News shows.

    None of these talk radio hosts I have been listening to are (or were) “paid by Mitt Romney.” I don’t know who you were referring to, but Sean, Rush, Mark and Laura Ingraham did NOT endorse Mitt Romney, or even sound very supportive of his campaign until the last couple of weeks, after Giuliani withdrew from the campaign for the nomination.

  18. on 15 Feb 2008 at 6:31 amDavid

    What a klutz, I had a response almost finished and I must have hit some key I didn’t mean to and it’s gone. ok, here’s the compact version


    1) I don’t pay the slightest attention to Rosie, never have, never will.

    2) My opinions are not formed from reading left wing propaganda, but from reading that from the right.

    3) You claim I don’t respond when you ask me to explain something I said. The truth is that in most cases I have and I spent a lot of time on some of them, answering point by point. But, once I hit enter it is out of my hands whether you see it or not, that is up to Peter or another moderator if there is one. And as I’ve said before, I acknowledge and accept that it is the moderator’s job to control the content of the blog so I’m not complaining. But it is frustrating to spend that time only to have it disappear into the vast wasteland of discarded data 🙂 Since I don’t often save what I have written I can’t offer to send them to you. Hmm, does that sound evasive? It’s not, really but I guess you only have my word for that.

    4) Vitriol – I had to look it up to make sure I had the correct definition in my head. It’s not vitriol you read from me it is reaction and opposition. They can be the same I know, but that’s not what I have written here. Perhaps that’s just what you expect so it’s what you see? Perception is everything and I have read many things on this blog that I find far more venomous than anything I have written here.

    5) Constitution party – it’s funny because my post came after yours but I wrote is before I read you thoughts on the party so you answered the questions that hadn’t been asked yet.

    I said I’d be brief didn’t I? Ok, the last thing, the following quote comes from a letter to the editor on CNS News, I wondered what the thoughts on here would be about it.

    “As a conservative who feels only true conservatism can save the nation, I will vote Democratic if Sen. John McCain is nominated to represent the Republican Party in the presidential election. The Democrats tell you up front what they are about ? including higher taxes and government ‘nanny-care’ ? unlike the Republican Party, who says one thing and does another. Like my parents taught me, a liar is worse than a thief, for a thief will only take what you have. A liar on the other hand can never be trusted. There you have it in a nutshell, liars and thieves, make your choice.”

  19. on 15 Feb 2008 at 8:33 amPeter

    Sean, Rush, Mark and Laura Ingraham did NOT endorse Mitt Romney, or even sound very supportive of his campaign until the last couple of weeks, after Giuliani withdrew from the campaign for the nomination. [emphasis added] 

    Trish has hit on something important which I’d like to explore further in this thread. Based on the anti-McCain sentiment in this space, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, but I throw this thought out there for your consideration.

    What strikes me about Trish’s quote above is how the talk show hosts didn’t rally to Romney until *after* Giuliani withdrew. I agree; it looks to me like talk radio expected Giuliani to be their firewall against McCain–and by the time they realized they had miscalculated and threw their support to Romney, it was too late.

    But what if talk radio had been right? What if Giuliani had stopped McCain and secured the nomination? If Guiliani had instead been the victor, would the same talk radio hosts–who now make such a point out of their principled opposition to McCain–be telling pro-lifers that they need to suck it up for the good of the party?

    McCain–despite the occassional odd utterance–had a solid pro-life voting record until the taxpayer-funded destruction of embryos issue arrived. Giuliani, on the other hand, was about as pro-abortion as any major candidate for the GOP nomination that we have ever seen.

    I infer from all this that the other issues on which McCain departs from conservative orthodoxy–on say, immigration or McCain-Feingold–matter more to these talk show hosts than abortion. I further infer that some of the same celebrity conservatives who make such a point of their opposition to McCain because of his betrayals of the movement would have been happy to go along with the party’s nominee and to tell pro-lifers to suck it up had that nominee been the pro-abortion Giuliani.

    There’s a lot more to be said on McCain and social conservatism, of course (I haven’t even mentioned his vote against the federal marriage amendment). But all of the above is something that pro-lifers ought to consider as they listen to talk radio’s opposition to McCain.

  20. on 15 Feb 2008 at 8:48 amDoug


    What I was referring to was some cryptic crack you made regarding the Church in Spain and Italy. What did you mean?

    As far as my remark regarding vitriol, specifically, I mean that it seems to me that after a few innocuous, non-provocative discussions, you often suddenly make an unsolicited, unprovoked wise crack at religion.

    We can tit for tat back and forth between Democrats and Republicans and not get anywhere. Actually, no, I don’t think Democrats usually say what they stand for. More often than not, I hear feel-good sound bites and abstract platitudes coming from their side more often than substantive issues. And the rest of their drivel is Bush bashing or Republican bashing.

    Regarding the Republicans, as I said, there is wrong on both sides. Frankly, I am grossly disappointed and disgusted by the modern GOP as well. So is the rest of the conservative base. Hence the backlash against psuedo-conservatives like Bush and McCain, who view the party platform with about as much respect as a spittoon.


  21. on 15 Feb 2008 at 9:55 amPeter

    Hi all,

    I’ve opened another thread on the presidential election. Please post any further comments about this topic in the new thread.

    Doug: I posted your response to me in the new thread.

    My thanks to all of you for making this thread so lively.