You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. This NYT blog article gives some insight into the current unease about Huckabee among Beltway neo-con opinion and decision makers. It doesn't mention Paul, but I think the distaste the
This NYT blog article gives some insight into the current unease about Huckabee among Beltway neo-con opinion and decision makers. It doesn't mention Paul, but I think the distaste the Weekly Standard and National Review crowd feel for Huckabee would apply to Paul for different reasons. Read the articles linked in the piece.
So why worry about Huckabee if he's a pretty conservative guy?
Because to nominate him (or Paul...obviously unlikely) would be to let the tail wag the dog.
The neo-cons want to continue to set the basic agenda for the Republican 1) use the government to support large corporate interests with budget handouts, 'free' trade agreements, cheap labor, and inaction on environment or health care issues; and, 2) an interventionist foreign policy designed to maintain access to important markets and commodities in the world, provide still more corporate handouts, and support Israel. (This last they don't have to worry about since both parties are unswervingly dedicated to that).
To effect these policies neo-con string-pullers rely on an electoral coalition made up in part, but crucially, of social conservative Christian fundamentalists, and small government anti-tax middle-middle class voters who have (inconsistent) libertarian sympathies and are often not socially conservative on issues of individual behavior. This is the Republican version of the Big Tent.
Neither of these two constituencies gets much or any of what they want--not just because liberals oppose many of their goals, but because Beltway neo-cons don't really care about these subordinate parts of the Republican coalition agenda and so Republican Presidents haven't really pushed these supposed interest of the party.
The worst thing possible from a neo-con point of view would be to have a genuine fundamentalist conservative, independent of their control, get the Republican nomination. An even worse scenario would be to have that happen and for the smaller semi-libertarian faction get aggressive and self-aware and go 'Nader' on them at the same time.
The neo-con factions have supported Giuliani (especially), Romney, or Thompson from the beginning because they know any Repub administration run by any of them will do the bidding of their own "real" Republican interests.
If Giuliani implodes and Huckabee wounds Romney badly they'll hold their nose, take a big painful gulp, and fall back to McCain. The recent endorsement of McCain by Lieberman signals an attempt by the neo-con movers and shakers to resuscitate McCain in the face of Thompson's lackluster bumbling, Romney's Mormon problems, and Giuliani's scandal problems.
Huckabee and Paul are nothing but trouble for the Corporate Right Wing.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
This is a nice attempt to try and label people, but any Republican, whether they be a neo-con, conservative, or moderate prefers McCain, Giuliani, or Romney over Huckabee or Paul for the simple reason that they have a better chance of beating Clinton in the general election.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
This is a nice attempt to try and label people, but any Republican, whether they be a neo-con, conservative, or moderate prefers McCain, Giuliani, or Romney over Huckabee or Paul for the simple reason that they have a better chance of beating Clinton in the general election.
Yeah, well Clinton does suck...
__________________ The Kings 2008-2009 season: A LA CHINGADA!!!
Neo-cons (in the true meaning of the term) are just as bad is ultra-liberals.
Quote:
The worst thing possible from a neo-con point of view would be to have a genuine fundamentalist conservative, independent of their control, get the Republican nomination. An even worse scenario would be to have that happen and for the smaller semi-libertarian faction get aggressive and self-aware and go 'Nader' on them at the same time.
And that, in my opinion, would be one of the best things that could happen.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Isn't Huckabee the guy that wanted to quarantine all AIDS patients?
He's a bit nutty for sure, but then it's not exactly a newsflash the most of the Repub candidates have something nutty going for them. Big win for Huckabee in Iowa tonight though! I think Giuliani is done.
Obama with a big win too. Not sure I saw that coming and I think Obama may be the one true moderate in this race. He has my vote if he pulls it off.
__________________ 'til one and one are one, eleven
Last edited by sonnyboy11; January 3rd, 2008 at 09:21 PM.
He's a bit nutty for sure, but then it's not exactly a newsflash the most of the Repub candidates have something nutty going for them. Big win for Huckabee in Iowa tonight though! I think Giuliani is done.
Obama with a big win too. Not sure I saw that coming and I think Obama may be the one true moderate in this race. He has my vote if he pulls it off.
Giuliani isn't done if and until he doesn't do well on super Tuesday. He has put his all his time and money into places like Florida.
Huckabee might be a distant memory after New Hampshire.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
This NYT blog article gives some insight into the current unease about Huckabee among Beltway neo-con opinion and decision makers. It doesn't mention Paul, but I think the distaste the Weekly Standard and National Review crowd feel for Huckabee would apply to Paul for different reasons. Read the articles linked in the piece.
So why worry about Huckabee if he's a pretty conservative guy?
Because to nominate him (or Paul...obviously unlikely) would be to let the tail wag the dog.
The neo-cons want to continue to set the basic agenda for the Republican 1) use the government to support large corporate interests with budget handouts, 'free' trade agreements, cheap labor, and inaction on environment or health care issues; and, 2) an interventionist foreign policy designed to maintain access to important markets and commodities in the world, provide still more corporate handouts, and support Israel. (This last they don't have to worry about since both parties are unswervingly dedicated to that).
To effect these policies neo-con string-pullers rely on an electoral coalition made up in part, but crucially, of social conservative Christian fundamentalists, and small government anti-tax middle-middle class voters who have (inconsistent) libertarian sympathies and are often not socially conservative on issues of individual behavior. This is the Republican version of the Big Tent.
Neither of these two constituencies gets much or any of what they want--not just because liberals oppose many of their goals, but because Beltway neo-cons don't really care about these subordinate parts of the Republican coalition agenda and so Republican Presidents haven't really pushed these supposed interest of the party.
The worst thing possible from a neo-con point of view would be to have a genuine fundamentalist conservative, independent of their control, get the Republican nomination. An even worse scenario would be to have that happen and for the smaller semi-libertarian faction get aggressive and self-aware and go 'Nader' on them at the same time.
The neo-con factions have supported Giuliani (especially), Romney, or Thompson from the beginning because they know any Repub administration run by any of them will do the bidding of their own "real" Republican interests.
If Giuliani implodes and Huckabee wounds Romney badly they'll hold their nose, take a big painful gulp, and fall back to McCain. The recent endorsement of McCain by Lieberman signals an attempt by the neo-con movers and shakers to resuscitate McCain in the face of Thompson's lackluster bumbling, Romney's Mormon problems, and Giuliani's scandal problems.
Huckabee and Paul are nothing but trouble for the Corporate Right Wing.
The East Coast Neo-Con Panic About Ron Paul and Huckabee 
1) use the government to support large corporate interests with budget handouts, 'free' trade agreements, cheap labor, and inaction on environment or health care issues; and, 2) an interventionist foreign policy designed to maintain access to important markets and commodities in the world, provide still more corporate handouts, and support Israel. (This last they don't have to worry about since both parties are unswervingly dedicated to that).
Mr. Irreverent
