I’m personally not fond of talk radio anymore. I used to be, but I outgrew that along with dial-up. I really only listened to Rush Limbaugh, but I never really got into him. I always liked what he had to say and I loved his delivery. For some reason Sean was always my least favorite. I think part of the reason was I never liked the way he handled callers. He always let them hang on for way too long.

As for Huckabee, I may agree with him on most social issues, but that’s one guy who should never be allowed to even be close the White House. The last thing we need is another G. Dub in the White House and that’s exactly how Huckabee would govern. Just look at how he governed in Arkansas.

Then again, none of the Republicans left should be allowed to even be close to the White House, not just Huckabee.

Man, this year sucks!

One should never be that pragmatic with their vote. Even in this years election.

Understandable. Personally, over the years of my life’s continuing education in this world, has began leading to believe that we can’t vote Republican just because we don’t want a Democrat in the White House. I understand long-term picture and all, but had it not been Jimmy Carter in 1976, we may not have had Ronald Reagan in 1980. Wrap your head around that!

I know it may seem like I’m busting your chops, but what I try to provoke is really thinking through why you vote the way you do (you being the “general” you). I got sick and tire of “anybody but ___”. It’s a tired and outdated mode of voting that has proven it’s worthlessness. True accountability begins at the ballot box and sometime thinking outside the Republican box is the best thing one can do for one’s political soul….as long as you don’t vote for a Democrat! Haha!!

One thing I forgot to mention was that I would support Sen. Zel Miller (D) over some of my fellow Party members. E.G.: John McCain, Olympia Snowe, or Lincoln Chaffee (who’s moderation still didn’t save his hide come election time). There may be some Democrats out there that I could support in national politics.

There is a disconnect between your local Democratic voters and you’re national party types with MoveOn.org. A lot of blue collar Dems are very solid and very patriotic Americans and show that the Republican party doesn’t have a lock on good people.

Humorous tale on the story of your blog.

I agree that voters of principle need to vote based on what we believe in and not a party as a whole. But there are also those cases in which not voting for the “lesser of two evils” means getting the evilist of evils (Note: For the record I’m not calling Democrats the “evilist of evils” I’m just using that terminology as an example, a hypothetical).

To throw this out there, with your talk of “thinking outside the Republican box” would you support say, a Rick Santorum third party (conservative) bid against a Mitt Romney (R) and Hillary Clinton (D) race?

I’ve not concluded my stance on that, so I’m interested in knowing your thoughts.

Would you agree that A) Bloomberg is too liberal to support and B) that libertarian and other “third” parties are generally non-starters and a waste of a national vote?

It’s one thing, I think, if the movement is built around a candidate who has identified himself to an extent on the national stage. It is another to try and build something from nothing, or almost nothing.

“As as for “Josh in a Box”, I know it’s corny, but it’s what was written on my birth announcement almost all of 30 years ago.”

“Josh in a Box” was your birth announcement? I’m afraid to ask in a family friendly forum such as this [note to self: mind out of gutter]

There are two different battles going on here. The obvious one is for the President of the United States. I believe that any of the candidates left in (and some who have left the race) are ALL electable–both Republican and Democrat. I hate to hear discussions of who to support based on who can beat Hillary et al. It is important that we make our best effort to beat whoever the Democrat is in November.

But there is a second battle. That is the battle for the future of the Republican party. It is a separate battle, but it is just as important as the first. Are we going to become populist? Are we going to return to Reagan conservatism? Are we going to reject social conservatism, but retain fiscal and defense? Are we just going to become Democrats of the 70s and 80s?

I was hoping that we were going to nominate a candidate who would win both battles. I do not think that is possible now.

So which battle do I want to win? Given my preference, I would choose winning the Republican party since a majority can be won again later. But I still have hopes that we can win the election and still win the Republican party, though it will not be through the President. Other leaders will have to rise through the party.

Chris, thanks for the heads up, but I never equated myself to Reagan.

Guys, this isn’t blind partisanship. I made that decision after sitting down and reviewing the various individual candidates on both sides of the aisle. If I had found in my survey that one particular Democratic candidate stood out as being better, more conservative, than John McCain (or any other Republican) I would not have issued the line that any of our Republican candidates are better than any of the Democratic candidates.

Josh,

You and I and the other commenters on this post may have been talking past each other. I tried to clarify this in the first half of this comment section discussion but perhaps I failed.

Yes, I would consider voting for someone without an “R” behind their name. Sometimes you’ve got to look at the bigger picture and do what is in the best interest of the locality, state, or country. What I’m saying about the Republican candidates applies to Republican presidential candidates for this cycle. I’m not saying this is some sort of general rule that should be invariably followed every election cycle.

After looking at the candidates this cycle, and looking at the issues this cycle, I’ve concluded that every Republican presidential candidate (Ron Paul is *ahem* problematic) is overall better than any candidate put forward by the Democrats. Interestingly enough, perhaps the most problematic Republican candidate on ideological grounds for me, Rudy, is rumored to be leaving the race very sooon.

In the end I think we’re probably in a lot of agreement here. The misunderstanding seems to have arisen out of an extrapolation of my statements pertaining to this election and my failure to clarify the limits on what I said.

While we’re at it, Brian, I think unified social conservative control of the country would generally produce as great a threat to American traditions of liberty as that posed by the extreme left, which fortunately has virtually ceased to exist. I can imagine no other group on the American scene that would be as religiously repressive (that is, leverage government to purvey one religious view at the expense of all others) or as intrusive into the lives of citizens.

I actually understood what you were saying, Brian. I don’t think social conservatives are mindless Republican partisans. Instead, I think they are using the Republican Party to pursue an agenda which they would be just as happy to see any other party pursue. The tendency of social conservative leadership to encourage their constituency to stay home when Republican moderates are running, or when a Republican takes an approach consistent with what the majority of Aemricans believe, has made that very clear over the years.

Chris,

I remember writing a post on my personal blog (can’t find it now) a couple of years ago advocating the idea of a Congress divided. I believe I wrote it in response to the growing amount of corruption in Republican controlled government and how it mirrored the Democrats corruption when they control government in the early 90’s.

I just can’t decide which is a better chamber to control the House or Senate. I guess lean more towards the Senate for judicial reasons.