About Me

Name: Michael Scotto
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

I Need a Voting Bloc!

Posted by Michael Scotto on Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:39:40 PM
John Edwards Teaches Us That Race and Sex Matter

Ignoring the fact that he can't break 15% in any primary, John Edwards stated that he was ending his run for the White House so history could be made. He was graciously admitting that he is a white guy. The lesson to be learned is that we shouldn't judge a candidate by his positions or even by the content of his character but rather by the color of his skin (or by his genitalia as the case may be).

So I suggest that Americans consider the following historic possibilities:

Mitt Romney would be the first Mormon president.
Rudy Giuliani would be the first Italian-American.
Mike Huckabee would be the first Democrat president elected as a Republican.
John McCain would be the first Democrat president elected as a Republican.


I Need a Voting Bloc!

The MSM seem to be obsessed with which Democrat has "the black vote," "the Hispanic vote" and "the single women vote." With Edwards out, they're now wondering who gets "the white guy vote." Of course with Rudy out I am stuck with my "Italian-American vote" and no where to turn.

I am quite upset to discover that for all these years I've been opposing my assigned "group." I failed to vote for Geraldine Ferraro. I opposed Mario Cuomo. I've been critical of Nancy Pelosi. I supported Duncan Hunter and then Fred Thompson as Rudy looked on weeping that I wouldn't join my government-sponsored "voting bloc. "Please forgive me!


Stop the Special Interest Groups!

If all these groups are voting in blocs, I am assuming it is because they have common political interests.  These interests would be "special" for each group. Somehow, since the blocs all have their different candidates, we must conclude that their interests are not "for the greater good," but rather for the benefit of the bloc.

To sum: the Democrats think that we should judge ourselves and the candidates by the color of our skins, by gender and by assessing which candidate would best advance our particular ("special") interests.


Exit Question: John Edwards also announced that the Dems would end poverty... did anyone hear him say how he'd do that?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Go Young and to the Right?

Posted by Michael Scotto on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:48:22 AM
IF McCain Gets the Nod, Where Does He Turn for VP?

In 1988 George Bush 41 went "young and to the right" when he called on Dan Quayle to join him on the GOP ticket. The twelve of us who voted for Jack Kemp in the 88 primaries had hoped that he would have called on our guy, but that's all sour milk under a rotting bridge.

If he's going to unite the party and bring back conservatives from the brink, McCain must look to his right. As likable as Dan Quayle was, he did not instill confidence. Even if Bush had won in '92 (which he should have and almost did... thank you, Ross Perot) the GOP would have been saddled with Quayle in '96.

McCain is at an age that he may not be able to complete two terms. A solid conservative VP selection must happen. If we conservatives are smarting from the McCain surge, we need to refocus and push for him to look to his right to complete the ticket.

For the record, Huckabee is not "to the right."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hunter Endorses Huck?

Posted by Michael Scotto on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:47:25 PM
As a Duncan Hunter Supporter I'm Mortified!

I can't make heads or tales of Hunter's endorsement. I am dumbfounded. I guess Duncan has been in DC too long. Then again, looking at who is left, I'm not sure he had much of a choice. At least Huck is solidly and openly Pro-Life.

Unfortunately for Hunter, Huck may be on his last breath (he's out of money). I was hoping that Duncan might find a spot as the Secretary of Defense in a Republican administration. I hope that is still a possibility should one of the other candidates win in November.

He may be thinking that he has a shot as VP on a Huckabee-led ticket.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where's Huck in Louisiana?

Posted by Michael Scotto on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:25:58 AM
Early Reports Out of LA Not Good for Huck 

Nation Review Reports HERE


I realize that LA is a little different from the rest of the South... but not that different. Republicans in LA are ignoring the candidacy of their neighbor, Mike Huckabee. If he can't win in SC or in LA where can he win?

Early reports from Louisiana have Huckster behind McCain, Paul and Romney. 

Out of money and running out of time. The only problem with Huck dropping out is that it would probably help McCain.


 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Medved's Regional Misunderstanding

Posted by Michael Scotto on Monday, January 21, 2008 4:14:02 PM
Many Still Do Not Understand the South

"[D]eeply conservative South Carolina"

That is what Michael Medved writes in his latest blog entry of the SC GOP electorate. His argument is that the talk-radio world is out-of-touch with what conservatives are thinking in regard to Huck and McCain. I'll let that argument alone and allow his readers to determine its validity. My concern is his "evidence" being the SC Republican electorate.

I have lived in the South for over 27 years. 23 of those years in NC and four in AL. South Carolina's "conservatives" are more like AL conservatives than NC conservatives. What I mean is that Alabama's conservatives are first, foremost and any other way you want to state it "social conservatives."

Alabama has a long history of populism. AL still elects Democrats in significant numbers (including in majorities in its state legislature) because the AL Dem Party presents itself as socially conservative yet populist on economic issues.

North Carolina has a greater mix of economic conservatives, but in many parts of the state the right is very similar to Alabama's right. A state that gave a huge margin of victory to Bob Dole in 1996 (Bob Dole!) has put a Democrat in the Governor's Mansion for many years. John Edwards was able to win in NC because he ran as a pro-death penalty, pro-military populist.

Populism sells in the South. George Wallace was never a conservative. He was populist who bragged about how many federal dollars he brought to Alabama. The parts of the South that have historically been poor (AL, MS, LA, AR) are susceptible to populist messages. Democrats can win and do win in the South if they are social conservatives (or at least pretend to be so).

If Michael Medved wants to find "deeply conservative" voters, he may want to look to the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh (NC) and skip SC.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Did Fred Cost Huck SC?

Posted by Michael Scotto on Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:15:54 AM
John Gizzi at Human Events Explores the Question

Article HERE

I'm puzzled by the "Thompson took from Huckabee" argument. As a Hunter supporter who moved over to Thompson, I can't imagine other similar voters were somehow betwixt Fred and Mike. That just doesn't ring true.

I think the Huck people have a low opinion of Evangelicals. They view us like the Dems view African-Americans; as simplistic, single-issue voters. That assumption cost him in SC.

Huck failed to see how important ALL conservative issues are to many Evangelicals. We see economic, military and security issues and integrally connected to social issues. Particularly intertwined with social issues are economic issues and it is there that Hike-a-fee has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

As distasteful as McCain may be to those of us who view ourselves as "purists" on the right, I can tell you that he is far more acceptable than someone with Huck's record. Being conservative on 20% of the issues isn't going to play well across the GOP. Someone who supports systems and policies that destroy the family can hardly be called a "social conservative" in my book. Even pro-choice Rudy is leagues ahead of Huck in that arena.

An economic populist is in essence a social liberal. Destroying the family through leftist economic policies is far more dangerous to the nation than is abortion. Hearts can be won over to the Pro-Life position despite the Supreme Court, but when Washington is intent on destroying the economy and the family by direct force of law, no amount of heart-winning matters.

Huckabee allowed his campaign to become the Jesse Jackson campaign. He banked on one region and one group of voters. Unfortunately for him the group he picked isn't as monolithic as he and his people supposed.

Hotair chimes in HERE


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Evangelicals Dumbing Down Conservatism

Posted by Michael Scotto on Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:45:52 PM
Losing Conservatism (and the Founders) in the Process

The idea that McCain and Huckabee (Hike-a-fee) are polling a combined 50% in SC is depressing, insane and unfathomable. It is especially unbelievable in light of the onslaught against both from every corner of the conservative universe.

We may be able to explain McCain's success to this point by noting the participation of Independents and Democrats in the early primaries, but how do we explain Huckabee? How is it possible that Evangelical friends of mine are imploring me to vote for a man with Huckabee's liberal record? The only thing I can figure is that Evangelicals have been melted down to two issues: abortion and gay marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-life and the words "gay marriage" do not compute, but there are other candidates that deliver the whole conservative package... including the social issues. To the point, why hasn't Fred Thompson caught fire with Evangelicals?


Dumbing Down the Big Tent

Jim Dobson's early attack on Thompson's faith didn't help. Perhaps the fact that Huckabee was a Baptist pastor may also be clouding the judgment of some. Evangelicals were brought into the "big tent GOP" but never educated on the ties that bind economic and Constitutional conservatism with social conservatism. If Huckabee believes that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" how can he argue that Roe v. Wade was a ridiculous decision? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I have more faith in Giuliani nominating strict constructionists than I have in Huckabee doing so.

The dumbing down of the GOP began with Bush 41 and has continued through Bush 43. Evangelicals were convinced that Bush was a "man of faith"and accepted the ridiculous combination of words "compassionate" and "conservatism." Governments should be small, just and responsive. I cannot imagine anything in the Founder's arguments for the Constitution that could be understood to mean that the government should be "compassionate."

If "compassion" is allowed to be defined as THE GOVERNMENT giving benefits to illegals, redistributing wealth and showing mercy to remorseless criminals we will never out-compassion the Left. It is a foolish strategy and indefensible in light of history and in light of biblical and Constitutional precepts for government.

The big tent didn't bother educating its inhabitants on the basics of conservatism and we've been paying for that oversight for 20 years now. Evangelicals have looked to men like Jim Dobson for guidance and they have been grossly under served.

We have allowed ourselves to become two issue voters and the conservative movement may suffer a great setback if the ship is not righted. The Bush/Rove strategy of appealing to Evangelical voters on social issues ALONE is coming back to haunt the party. If we end up with Huckabee as our standard-bearer, it may be time to start over.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Stop Huckabee" Train

Posted by Michael Scotto on Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:43:02 PM
Just a Partial List of Anti-Huck Voices

The following is just a sample of conservative voices that have sounded the alarm against the Huckster. Note, these folks are not just supporters of other candidates, they are openly opposed to Mike.

Mark Levin
Rush Limbaugh
George Will
Phyllis Schlafly
Michael Reagan
Jed Babbin
Rich Lowry
Jonah Goldberg
Kathryn Lopez
Fred Barnes
Charles Krauthammer
Peggy Noonan
Ann Coulter
Bob Novak
Bob Dole
Laura Ingraham
David Limbaugh
Donald Lambro
Dick Armey
Thomas Sowell
John Fund
Pete Wehner
David Frum
Deroy Murdock
Paul Mirengoff
John Hinderaker
Frank Gaffney
Sean Hannity
Michael Savage
Michelle Malkin

Huckabee's comments on the Constitution are serious. No one claiming to have any concept of what the Constitution means to the conservative movement would ever call it a "living, breathing document."


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Articulating Conservatism

Posted by Michael Scotto on Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:28:12 PM
Hitting an Historical Crossroads

If Mike Huckabee manages to become to GOP nominee it's time to take a step back and reevaluate what the Republican has become. After Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43 and a Huckabee campaign we may conclude that conservatism is dead as a driving force in the GOP.

I supported Duncan Hunter. His campaign is dead. Even with support from the likes of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, he could never break 1%. A new coalition of Rockefeller Republicans and ignorant and deceived Evangelicals have move the party away from its conservative tendencies towards the nonsensical, quasi-socialist "compassionate conservatism" of Bush 43 (which found its voice originally in Bush 41).

National Review bought the lie in 1988 with George H.W. Bush and now they have settled on Mitt Romney, a man who governed as a moderate to liberal Republican.


The Era of Fighting Big Government is Over

The era of big government was declared over by Bill Clinton (that it took a Dem to say it speaks volumes and that the theme is absent from the current GOP debates echoes even more loudly). It may be more accurate to say that the era of fighting big government is over in the GOP. When only an unstable man like Ron Paul is calling for the truncation of the federal government in the debates, we can conclude that the Regan phenomenon is on life-support.

In fact, one of the few sound things Paul states concerns slashing the federal government. The others seem to want to merely contain it. If conservatism preaches anything, it preaches that the government is the problem. I haven't heard much of that this year.

When a former mayor of NYC sounds like the economic conservative in the GOP race and boasts a better conservative record than a governor of Arkansas and a Senator from Arizona, we've lost our way.

Huckebee is a pro-Life Democrat. Period.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (2) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »