It helps if you are specific about what you think and what the coverage is like where you live.
It helps if you are specific about what you think and what the coverage is like where you live.
My two cents:
(1) I love it when the pundits are wrong
(2) I remain amazed at how little a role the futures markets play in Presidential coverage. They consistently have a much higher level of accuracy than the polls.
(3) In politics NOTHING is inevitable. My now deceased mother, a political science major at Duke, taught me never to say in politics x will happen with certainty. Always speak tentatively, Kendall, she said–remember: “Dewey beats Truman.”
(4) It is a flawed messy process but the contrast with Kenya and Pakistan is overwhelming. Bill Bennett mentioned this last night on CNN. I am so thankful for the gift of the messy but open and free democratic process, in spite of its many areas which need improving.
Although I do not agree with Obama’s politics, we have clearly made huge progress on the issue of race in America when a black man wins the Iowa caucus in a state with less than 2% black population.
Perhaps TEC will recognize that the US is not the evil racist empire that they think it is. Nah, +Bp Schofield will be elected PB before that ever happens.
It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. I have been watching the CNN coverage, and heard an interview with Huckabee this morning. He is a likeable guy, but my concern with the fair tax (the one on consumption) is what happens to general revenue when the economy turns downward. Of all the candidates, Richardson is best prepared for the job as President (this does not say that I agree with all of his positions). Tis a pity he did not get more press.
I wrote off Richardson when he stated he would turn down the honorific chair of the Boy Scouts.
[blockquote][url=http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071225/NEWS09/712250367/-1/SPORTS12 ]
Although he strongly supports gay rights, he had to repeatedly apologize in August after he was asked at a candidate forum in Los Angeles whether people are born gay or choose to be that way. His response, “It’s a choice,” was the wrong answer for gay-rights activists, who hold the opposite view.
He quickly retracted his statement, explaining, “I’m not a scientist.”
On reproductive issues, he’s a Roman Catholic who strongly supports legalized abortion. On gay rights, he has promised to become the first president in history to reject the honorary chairmanship of the Boy Scouts of America because it won’t allow openly gay men to become Scout leaders.[/url][/blockquote]
I really don’t see how you could support this panderer.
My general view on both sides:
Charisma wins over substance
God Help Us!
Gloria
I’m glad to see the two big phonies, Hillary and Romney, get spanked.
But keep this in mind about Iowa: it’s a state where those well to the left or right of center do better than “moderates.†In my lifetime, I can’t remember a moderate senator they have elected. But I can remember a number of both very liberal and very conservative senators from Iowa. It’s a funny state that way.
So it’s no surprise that the lefty combo of Obama and Edwards beat Hillary and that Huckabee beat everybody.
Having said that, I still think Hillary and Romney are both in big trouble.
An Obama ticket in the general election will get trounced. Please nominate him. Please.
Not much on the local news here, I had to flip between CNN and MSNBC to follow the coverage and returns.
Glad to see that Clinton is no longer the “inevitable” candidate. Her team looked pretty demoralized as she gave her final speech last night.
Obama is my favorite candidate of both parties, despite my problems with his abortion record. Glad to see him do well. I think an Obama campaign would be refreshingly positive, and there are very few candidates I feel that way about. I’m also glad to see Edwards get some encouraging support as well; it would be nice to see the Dem race whittle away to those two (last night there was already speculation that the Clinton campaign might not last past February).
On the GOP side, I had hoped for but not expected a better showing from McCain – unfortunately the far right of the party have no use for him. I can’t see him getting the nomination. Guliani’s bomb was no surprise, since he had written off Iowa from the beginning. I like Huckabee’s character, and think he would be a positive campaigner (like Obama) but I think he will be seen as “too religious” to maintain a credible campaign. I still think the GOP nomination is Romney’s to lose.
Dream on, Charley. Obama will not get “trounced.” He might even win. The Republicans’ best chance is now John McCain, who is, well, problematic.
I was undecided before last night, although I never cared much for Hillary, and thought Joe Biden was unfairly dismissed by too many. I have my suspicions on how it will play out from here, but I’ll keep them to myself for now. However, at least if Hilliary does get the nomination (something that, believe it or not, I never thought likely), she will have earned it, not had it handed to her because the Clinton’s think she deserved it.
Note that, with the exception of Richardson, virtually all “second-tier” Democrats have left the race. This leaves only one interesting question: whither Edwards? If he keeps going, he may well become essentially a cult-candidate, something for which I think he has little taste. If his support starts to slip, I don’t see it gravitating to Hillary.
WGN radio–Chicago, had Dr. Milt Rosenberg (Extention 720) doing 4 hours of programing from 7-11 p.m. Along with various expert guests, it was wonderful, and thoughtful programing. They plan to do the same the night of New Hampshire’s vote, and again on Feb. 5th. If when the sun goes down, and you can catch 720 on your AM dial, or wgnradio.com, it would be well worth the listen.
sjengelhardt
If I expressed my honest opinion here about John Edwards, it would probably get me banned from this blog. But I will ask this question: has anyone gotten more mileage than he has out of an ineffectual 6 years as a Senator – – the only office he has ever held – – and which he spent half that term running for President or VP? Not sure he could get re-elected to anything in North Carolina, but yet he runs surprisingly strong in Iowa.
Re #10: on political coverage, for you politics junkies out there, may I recommend two blogs, both on The New Republic website? The perspective is liberal (damning for some here, I know), but always interesting, at times quite lively.
The blogs are, respectively, The Plank and The Stump, both available at http://www.tnr.com
My caucus needed to elect 6 representatives to county convention. the three leaders split 2-2-2. My take on it…..total of 201 persons in the room. Obama ended up with abt 83, Edwards 68, and Clinton 50. Formula for determination, using a round up on percents gave Clinton 2 instead of 1 as Obama round up was one point short of hers. The young with Obama, the elderly with Clinton, and Edwards a mix. I see this as a wide open door for Edwards…..IMHO
First, living in New Hampshire means that the candidates have been here off & on for over a year, and are now here again. We live two hours north of “anywhere” (Manchester). But Obama has been here twice, Richardson at least twice, Huckabee once, McCain once or twice.
Our phone is ringing so often I will be grateful when next Tuesday (NH Primary Day) is over. And I still have not decided for sure how to vote.
As for Iowa (the state where I grew up but left before caucuses came into play), here’s my take. My 80-year-old aunt and uncle told me they would go caucus last night IF they had enough energy. They usually go to bed at 9:00. I suspect older people don’t go because of frail health or inability to stay up.
There’s no provision for absentee caucus-ing that I know of. As a result, it probably attracts a younger group – thus the surprise win for Obama. My aunt and uncle planned to caucus for Hillary Clinton.
Huckabee scored lots of brownie points in Iowa when he changed his mind about running the anti-attack-attack-ad he was planning, to defend himself from Mitt Romney’s original attack. In NH Romney is attacking everyone, especially McCain – and it is going to lose him my husband’s vote, most likely.
As of today, I intend to vote for McCain or Huckabee, or there’s still a possibility I may write in my pastor’s name because he is honest and Christ-like. So there’s my report from NH.
#11 – Obama has made a lot out of his 4 years as an ineffectual Senator. I do like him more than Edwards and his phony populism though.
No. 9, electoral landslide. You heard it here first. I guarantee it.
But I don’t think BO will get the nomination. I think the Dems will step back from the brink. He’s just not electable. Nice guy, well-spoken, hasn’t done much and isn’t saying anything new.
Fifteen minutes are about up.
Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire is at all representative of the ethnic makeup of the nation or of its economics. We will see a lot of political spin during the next month, but nothing really meaningful until Super Tuesday.
My personal preference? Draft Al Gore!
i am sooo with you wolfstan! my worst nightmares won last night. huckabee is a goober but clever at hoodwinking people about his ‘goodness’ and i think we need someone stong and experienced rather than obama-quite frankly i just don’t like his wife-she bullies him. her and oprah running the country….aack! al gore could sweep if he would just step up!
Here’s the deal – there will be no Mormon president, there will be no black president, and there most likely won’t be a female president (unless she’s a Republican – a Margaret Thatcher type), within the next twenty years.
On the Dem side, John Edwards wins the nomination and maybe the presidency.
All he has to do is keep doing what he’s doing. As somebody above mentioned, Super Tuesday will tell the tale.
Huckabee looks too much like Jim Nabors. Goolee Sargeant Carter.
I don’t see Edwards winning. Too far on the left, and the ultimate empty suit.
I’m a registered independent who believes salvation cometh not from politicians, so take my analysis for what its worth. I have to admit, I was a bit surprised at the turnout of the Iowa Caucuses. The GOP side did not surprise me as much as the Democratic caucus. I knew Hillary was in a close race, but she did not even end up second, but third. I was fairly shocked by that because I had assumed that Hillary was the machine candidate. I think this does not bode well for the Clinton campaign. Plain talking Midwesterners I think saw Hillary as too calculating. If Clinton can’t at least place in a Midwest state, I largely see another Red State/Blue State map playing out in the general election if she does squeak by with the nomination. I don’t see the South or the Midwest really going for Hillary in the general election if this trend continues.
At was a bit surprised at turnout of the GOP Caucus. Although I know Huckabee played Iowa perfectly. Romney poured in tons of money and time into Iowa and still lost by almost 10 percentage points to Huckabee. I don’t think that bodes well for Romney. Romney doesn’t sit well with a lot of GOPers, especially Values Voters and Southerners. Republicans can’t win without the New Right voters or the South. He’s a slick, fast talking Yankee and a Mormon. I just don’t see him energizing any of the GOP base that needs energizing. If you look at any President in the last 50 years, JFK is the only one to win the White House (and only by a squeaker against Nixon in 1960) from New England.
Whomever nominates the Yankee (Clinton from New York, Romney from Massachusetts) will lose the general election. I really think it is that simple.
I’m not too surprised over the Republican side — Huckabee and Romney at first and second.
I’m surprised that Clinton came in third.
But . . . I never count out a Clinton. Not ever.
I’d vote for Huckabee over Clinton — but I would hold my nose as he is not a conservative, but simply a Republican and a liberal Baptist — [which is more conservative than a liberal Episcopalian, of course].
Well, for what’s worth (not much I know), my favorite candidate dropped out early (Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a devout Roman Catholic, and ardently pro-life etc.), so I really don’t have a horse in this race. No one I can get excited about anyway.
I hope Hackabee goes all the way and gets the nomination. But I frankly don’t see him winning the election, sad but true. But, like James Dobson (and unlike Pat Robertson), I will NEVER vote for a pro-choice candidate (like Guiliani) just because he appears more electable. I would rather vote for a third-party candidate. But I will NEVER, ever, under any circumstances vote for a pro-choice candidate. Period.
David Handy+
I think I better stick to advocating New Reformations
I’ve been aggressively ignoring the presidential campaign, on the theory that it’s mostly a bunch and empty posturing and there’s no reason for me to pay attention to any of it until I actually have to make a decision. The Washington primary is coming up on Feb. 19th, but — alas — we no longer have an “open” primary, and I can’t ever bring myself to declare as a member of any party. (Besides, the primary results are mostly for show; the majority of delegates are decided in caucuses.)
So since I’m effectively disenfranchised from the primaries, my decision doesn’t come until November. By which time I’m pretty sure I’ll know which one of the candidates I dislike the least.
A lot of conservative analysts are saying that Huckabee and McCain wins in these two states will do much to give the nomination to Guiliani, whose strategy of waiting for the larger primaries was considered nuts — until yesterday.
I have to agree with IRNS and disagree with Charley. Obama is probably the strongest Democratic candidate for the general election. He has little substance, but that doesn’t matter a whole lot in the television age. If Huckabee were to be nominated for the Republicans, I think Obama would win easily.
I have a different take on what an “attack” is, apparently. Ads pointing out an opponent’s policies aren’t “attacks” unless they’re not true. Character assassination or making false statements about an opponent’s positions are bad; pointing out an opponent’s policies and experience are okay with me. But it is nice to be where I don’t have to see or hear any of it. 🙂
Ross: I don’t understand how you can claim to have been disenfranchised when you readily admit having disenfranchised yourself. It’s like kicking your own rear and then claiming abuse.
Interesting thread.
Kendall, I so appreciate your final point. I too was watching CNN and heard Bennett’s comment last night. The contrast with Pakistan and Kenya is really sobering, and something to be thankful for. It makes me even more thankful in hindsight that the country where I work in Africa had such an amazingly peaceful and fair democratic election earlier this year and a peaceful transition to a new government. It’s something I try not to take for granted any longer.
I can’t remember when I’ve last been in the US during Primary season. It’s been a long time, so I found the political punditry fascinating watching last night.
It’s been good to hear more from some of the candidates. Obama has gone up in my estimation (and I’m a pretty die-hard Republican). And there’s much I like about Huckabee asa man, but I wouldn’t want to vote for Huckabee as president. I’m increasingly leaning towards McCain, but I fear he doesn’t have much of a chance. All in all, I’m concerned about the field on both sides. There’s vision and passion and new ideas, which is good. But I just don’t see a seasoned leader with a chance to win, and that is terribly worrying, especially in the realm of foreign policy. I feel we’ve been burned previously in electing “fresh faces” (I’m thinking of Carter / George W. Bush — Clinton at least had his Rhodes Scholar credentials, and so wasn’t such a foreign policy lightweight). So, I’m praying for wisdom as I vote (by absentee here in FL) in 4-5 days, and also praying for our country and leaders. It’s a tough time to elect a president.
#27: OK, I disenfranchised myself from the primaries. I wasn’t attempting to air a personal grievance (although I’m not a fan of the primary system, at least not as currently implemented) so much as explaining why I feel I can ignore the race until shortly before November and still be a responsible citizen.
Looking at this agonizingly long campaign season, on cynical days I think we were better off when candidates were chosen by party loyalists at the conventions.
Wolfstan and Magnolia, I’m with you—draft Gore!
But it ain’t gonna happen, short of an electoral earthquake of the sort that none can foresee (and probably none would want).
FWIW, I think Rudy—who did have his good points as mayor, but whom actual New Yorkers do not in fact remember fondly—is just a darker Romney, or has become so: one note (Romney as manager, Rudy as Mr. 9/11) played endlessly while reinventing himself unconvincingly. Don’t expect big states to be his salvation.
I found both Al Mohler and Peggy Noonan’s commentaries today on the Iowa results very helpful. Both strike one similar theme: the fact that Presidents CAN’T change a culture. Too often we evangelicals have been naive on that score and voted idealistically and emotionally. Here’s what Mohler writes:
[blockquote]The rhetoric of the race — and the rhetoric of many evangelicals — is disturbing. This race is important and necessarily so. We are talking about the next President of the United States, after all. But evangelicals have invested far too much hope in the political process. No government can make people good, transform humanity, or eliminate sin. The political sphere is important, but never ultimate. Jesus Christ is Lord — and He will be Lord regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.
This presidential race offers evangelical Christians an opportunity to mature and rethink our model of political engagement. We are likely to confront developments and choices that will require significant intellectual effort among American Christians.
Americans should give thanks today, mindful of the fact that our democratic process is evidence of national stability and constitutional order. The U.S. Constitution is the world’s longest-surviving political charter. For a contrast, just think of the political turmoil and tragedy seen in Pakistan and Kenya in just the last week. Our political process may be only rarely graceful or predictable — but it is still one of the wonders of the world. Stay tuned.[/blockquote]
From here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1076
Peggy Noonan writes:
[blockquote]They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues–taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia–and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.
But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know.[/blockquote]
Link here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110011083
#32, Karen B.,
Ditto. I heartily concur. The citations from Al Mohler and Peggy Noonan are very apt and important. And may I add that the same dynamic applies to church leaders as well? Bishops have relatively little power to change the culture of our churches too, much less the general surrounding culture, which is now so secularized and often downright hostile to genuine Christianity. That is why I keep bringing up the phrase “Post-Christendom.” We haven’t yet even begun to really take seriously enough the daunting challenges that come from our new minority status in neo-pagan western culture.
And as for #31, IRNS,
No wonder we’ve clashed so strongly elsewhere, especially on WO. If you support the draft Al Gore fantasy, well, you and I probably live on different planets in lots of ways. I can’t believe he got the Nobel Peace Prize. .
Note to the Elves. Please don’t let IRNS post any ultra-long diatribes attempting to refute me, the way he did over on SF recently on a different matter. We can slug it out on his own blog.
David Handy+
(And yes, IRNS, that was partly tongue in cheek!) (grin)
[i] Slightly edited by elf. The same will happen to IRNS if he’s foolish enough to carry on this battle. [/i]
This is going to sound rather odd, coming from a card-carrying Tory like me, but there are a number of things about Obama that I find genuinely intriguing and also massively attractive.
The first time that I ever heard him speak– indeed, the first time that I ever heard his name– was ages ago, when he was on a radio show that I had randomly tuned into while driving in my car. I tuned into the program after he had been introduced, so I had no idea what his name was or what the program was all about. Nor did I know what the program was– it was a local show on a local station; I was far from home and had never listened to this program before.
Obama knocked my socks off. He sounded so good. I listened and listened and listened, trying to figure out whether he was a liberal or a conservative. And I couldn’t tell. The truth of the matter is that NOW, years later, I cannot even remember what was being discussed on this program. And, obviously, the issue under discussion was probably so relatively insignificant that it did not lend itself to identifiable catch-phrases or openly ideological spin. But Obama (I did not learn his name until the show concluded) came across as being incredibly bright, articulate, authentic, and well-informed. The fact that it was unclear whether he was liberal or conservative can be interpretted two ways, I know– either this is a very good thing; or else it is a very bad thing. Be that as it may, it is STILL a VERY DIFFICULT THING to pull off.
There is a limit to how much good any President can do while in office. And there is a limit to how much bad he can do while in office, as well.
I am NOT going to vote for a Mormon. You can style my aversion to Mormons anyway that you want to– maybe it IS an unreasonable religious prejudice on my part. But I think a LOT of other Republicans share my gut feeling about electing a guy who can adhere to such a bizarre faith. Nor am I ever going to vote for a pro-choice candidate. I think Huckabee is, in many ways, extremely sub-optimal, in spite of his evangelical credentials. My best guess right now is that McCain is going to get the republican nod. And I have many BIG ISSUES with him, as well.
In my humble opinion, the Democrats could do a LOT worse than nominating Obama. They could, for instance, nominate another Clinton.
Regarding the coverage, I am astounded that the press can characterize this as “Experience vs. Change”. None of the 3 Dems have real experience; they are all one-term senators. Obama at least had some state legislative experience. Hillary definitely cannot be honestly called a candidate of experience (osmosis, maybe?).
Same weakness in GOP, ast least at top. McCain and to some extent, Thompson are only ones with high-level experience, although Romney seems to have a good managerial/executive history.
the comments from mohler & noonan are laughable and sad – like pushing a genie back into a bottle
people have lived thru 8 yrs of clinton & 8 years of bush – they’d like to respect their gov’t and hope it can work
No wonder we’ve clashed so strongly elsewhere, especially on WO. If you support the draft Al Gore fantasy, well, you and I probably live on different planets in lots of ways. I can’t believe he got the Nobel Peace Prize. .
[blockquote]Note to the Elves. Please don’t let IRNS post any ultra-long diatribes attempting to refute me, the way he did over on SF recently on a different matter. We can slug it out on his own blog.
David Handy+
(And yes, IRNS, that was partly tongue in cheek!) (grin)
Slightly edited by elf. The same will happen to IRNS if he’s foolish enough to carry on this battle. [/blockquote]
No need to carry on any battle—I thought I was clear that the “draft Al Gore” scenario was a fantasy. Pleasant to spin out while waiting for the subway, perhaps, but practically speaking nothing more.
I have enough disagreements with David Handy+. I don’t need to add politics to the list.
New Reformation Advocate/Dave, mostly, religious liberals are also political liberals, and religious conservatives are usually also political conservatives. But it isn’t always so. IRNS is one who crosses categories, and there are others who post here who are Anglican conservatives and political liberals. For the record, I support IRNS on WO and I wouldn’t vote for Al Gore for anything. The variety of opinion expressed here emphasizes that it’s not safe to assume the political view based on the religious.
#38, Katherine,
Thanks. I was mostly joking, but that doesn’t always come across well on a blog, i.e., without tone of voice and body language to clarify one’s intent. There is actually, of course, a distinguished tradition of combining Anglo-Catholic theology with liberal social justice concerns. For example, think of the the famous slum parishes in London’s East End in the last century that pioneered many forms of catholic ritualism. Also +Charles Gore and the Lux Mundi group he led. Doubtless, +Desmond Tutu is the best-known representative of that venerable tradition (along with ++RW himself).
FWIW, I used to represent a similar mix, When I was a Wheaton College student, I was fascinated by Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis, and I subscribed to Sojourners magazine for several years. So I was for a while, an evangelical theological conservative with liberal political tendencies (I’d grown up in a moderately liberal Democratic family in SD, the state that gave us George McGovern and Tom Daschle, not to mention Hubert Humphrey before that).
But then I gradually became disillusioned with the answers proposed by the Left; so often they just seemed to make things worse instead of better (the fatally flawed welfare system being perhaps the prime example, encouraging the dependency on government aid that keeps so many of the nation’s poor trapped in the ghettos etc.). So I gradually morphed into a so-called “neo-conservative,” of the William Buckley, or better, Richard John Neuhaus variety. So I’ve gone from being a Democrat to a Republican, and from a subscriber to Sojourners to an avid reader of Neuhaus’ splendid journal, First Things.
And yes, IRNS, I’ll return the favor. I agree with you for once. We disagree on enough other issues; there’s no need to bring politics into it as well.
David Handy+
(And Katherine, I prefer “David” to “Dave,” thanks)
Sorry, David. I was typing in a hurry and too lazy to go up the thread to look to see which it was. As a former “Kathy,” I know how you feel.
I know, via blogs, some people like IRNS (conservative high church, liberal politics) and some like your former self (conservative evangelical church, liberal politics). Huckabee I take to be somewhat as you were. But I can’t think of any examples of liberal church people, a la Schori, who are conservatives in politics. Libertarians, perhaps, but not conservatives. Are there some here?
#40, Katherine,
You’re forgiven. No big deal about the name.
As for your question, others hopefully will chime in who can speak to it more directly. But given the reputation of the TEC as, once upon a time, “the Republican Party at prayer” (i.e., the old East Coast elite type Republicans, ala Geroge H. W. Bush and so on), it’s not hard to think that there used to be many such figures in TEC, who were theologically liberal, but politically conservative because they were so well-connected to the nation’s economic and political elite. Believe it or not, +Bill Swing, the retired bishop of California, i.e., San Francisco, was supposedly staunchly Republican while in office, even though, as we all know, he was and is ultra-liberal theologically. Doubtless there are still many others, despite the way TEC has lately been taken over by the Democratic Party.
I’d guess that it all depends on what you consider “conservative” as opposed to “liberal” politics. There’s clearly a lot of room for disagreement there. For instance, by conservative do you mean socially conservative or fiscally conservative? Pro-business or anti-big government etc? My hunch is that there are still a lot of wealthy Episcopalians who vote Republican for tax reasons. No wild redistribution of wealth schemes for these well-heeled cats, thank you.
David Handy+
Yes, there are subdivisions. I was assuming, and it seems reasonable, that “conservative” Christians, whether high- or low-church, are social conservatives, that is, opposed to unlimited abortion on demand and gay marriage. Some may be libertarian-leaning on marriage, but it’s hard for me to imagine how one could affirm the Nicene creed in a fairly literal sense and think it’s okay to abort inconvenient babies. Before the Buckley/Reagan conservatives, and since, many Republicans held to a “moderate” view which was basically less government spending than the other guys. I can remember my own grandfather, who voted for a Democrat only once in his life (W. Wilson, in the middle of WWI), writing to Richard Nixon to insist on price controls! “Republican” doesn’t equal “conservative,” not the way program conservatives would define it. This is what the Republican primaries are about, besides who will be nominated. What do we stand for? Anything? I campaigned for Bush in the general elections twice because I thought he was a whole lot better than the alternatives, but I knew he wasn’t a solid conservative, and he hasn’t been. This time around, if we give in to Huckabee because he’s such a nice guy, we’ll be giving up on economic and fiscal conservatism perhaps permanently.
When it comes to “liberal” vs. “conservative,” it’s worth pointing out that there are subdivisions of the subdivisions. Thus, for example, there are ideological divisions on taxing (what is a fair tax? should the tax system be a means to redistribute income?) and there are divisions on spending (should the government do anything more than defend our shores, pave our roads and deliver our mail?). Different types of “liberals” and “conservatives” will answer those questions differently. Thus Huckabee, for example, seems to be “conservative” in the first category, but (somewhat) more “liberal” in the second.
I’m not sure what I think about the Fair Tax. Mostly, I think it’s unworkable, with its “prebate” requiring a continuing income verification function of some kind, and I seriously doubt that the income tax will ever actually be repealed, so we could end up with both. Some libertarians are in favor of it because they say it will get the government out of private decisions. Huckabee could be attractive to “moderate” Democrats, but he’d get hammered by the media. Here in Egypt we get some of the US news shows on satellite, and I’ve already seen a spot or two on Evolution vs. Creationism.