Have to agree with larry and reason. A better title for this blog entry would have been: "Iowa's Social Conservatives Are Disillusioned."

" Or, a figure like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) could enter the race and unify social conservatives behind him."

Not bloodly likely now. Newt has come out in favor of not only acknowledging global warming but actually ACTING on it. The social conservative's reaction? "I'm still trying to ignore global warming and hope it all goes away!" Newt is a few years too far ahead of the Republican curve on this issue. Wait for another killer hurricane and things might be different but most Republican heads are clearly stuck in Republican sand on this issue.

Newt is toast for that alone, not to mention his blatant moral transgressions. The idea that the weekly churchgoing "religious right" evangelicals would pass up an opportunity to "cast stones" against such a politician is beyond belief. Heck, they could be working on their third or fourth divorce themselves and they'd still vote against him for his own moral failings.

I am a strong foreign policy, fiscal and social conservative. A true conservative. I really prefer someone who is all 3, and in this election cycle, we just don't have it. Romney is trying to appear to be all 3, but he's a flip flopper and an inconsistent leader. Leadership is also an endearing quality that Romney doesn't possess. McCain and Guiliani at least makes a stance and sticks with it. McCain is more socially conservative than is Guiliani. Meaning McCain is a big states right guy. He really seems to be more a Reagan Republican than anyone else. I do feel John McCain is the best candidate to lead in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. I also think he will not bend to international pressure against Israel. I also believe McCain will pick a governor, a fiscal conservative and actually take his advice to help balance this nation's budget, cut spending and will appoint conservative/state's rights judges to the courts. He will also, unfortunately, make Global warming concessions that will hurt our economy, support federal funding for embroyonic stem-cell research and support censorship in the amounts of money who can spend on what. But he's consistent, will take advice, has a great military mind (despite the recent "Iraq is safe" comments) and will be a very effective leader for the nation. So I am propably voting McCain. I had though Gov. Perry (TX), gov. Pawlenty (Minn.), Gov. Sanford (SC) or gov. Perdue (Ga.) would have entered the race and really take it by storm. But, I guess not. So for me, I'm backing McCain for the reasons mentioned and figure he will pick a gov. who has balanced a state budget conservatively and has social conservative bona-fides: ie Pawlenty or Sanford would be the top choices in my view.

I think I may have a answer for some of the early Bush support and why he has lost most of it. I watched him at the American Legion in Fairfax, Va. Tuesday and he keeps linking 9/11 to Iraq when it has been shown time and again, that Iraq was not involved. The war mongers have been proven wrong in almost everything they have said and GW continues to tell the same lies that have cost us and others so much.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Absolutely no one is afraid of Hillary. "Turned off," sure. "Exasperated with," sure. "Sick of," sure. But she doesn't scare anyone.

meuphys: I have never used the words "destined or entitled" in any of my comments that I know of, and your arguement of the "bush, clinton, bush, clinton" is, IMHO, false on its face. You are the only one that knows why you do not support Hillary. I suspect you have a favorite like the rest of us, and are trying to promote whoever that may be, as you should.

spartan: Another thing to look for is what happened to Ned Lamont. I know most folks will think this is pretty far-fetched now, but the people that "Fear" Hillary will go to any extreme, as I have stated, in their attempt to stop her. States that have cross-over voting, where you can vote for either party no matter how you are registered, will be repubs voting for the opponent of Hillary in the hope of knocking her out of the race.

amen, spartan. lyle, i think what bothers me the most about your position is that there's no give in it. you don't even say, "i hope" or "i think" - it's always "when it happens, won't you all look stupid." that attitude will not win hillary any supporters, at least not here.

we are all waiting to hear WHY you think she is 'destined' for the nomination, or even 'entitled'... because to me at least, that's not how democracy is supposed to work.

and please, i would like at least once to hear what you have to say about the whole 'bush clinton bush clinton.' that is still a major obstacle in the way of my ever supporting hillary, albeit not the only one.

how does that not indicate that we do in fact have an 'aristocracy' in this country?

ok lyle, no problem. but in all seriousness hillary's problems are already known,sure ill support her if she does get the nod, but she maybe the biggest get out the vote motivator to the right in all of politics. and i dont know about you, but 8 years of repubican mismanagement is enough.

Chris,

I think you are missing something in wondering where the social conservatives have gone. They have been so deceived and disillusioned by George Bush that they have withdrawn from active politics. You keep referring back to the election of 2004. That's become totally irrelevant to today's politics. Who thinks George Bush could be reelected today? The social conservatives gave Bush their heart and their trust, and they have been fatally wounded.

meuphys: Living in a "Dream World" is in no way name calling, it is know as the TRUTH. The opponents of Hillary will come up with anything and everything and then say to her supporters "Prove it". Anyone can tear any thing apart by taking a sentence or even a word and turn it to their advantage. spartan was doing just that until he/she "hillary is to polorizing to even nominate". Take some of my comments and mark them down and come next February you will see how accurate I am.

proudtobeGOP: "The guy's a nut case, just like Kucinich on your side."

What are you talking about? My vote is available to the best candidate. Nominate someone who isn't a rightwingnut and you might get my vote.

ok, I'll admit it. The truth is that I'm an early 40's WASP with a pot belly and a middle-management desk job. I'm stuck in a relatively boring marriage, with two kids who are spoiled and not too smart.

On weekends, I used to go fishing sometimes, but the wife started to give me a hard time because now the boy is old enough to go, and, to tell you the truth, the thought of spending a couple hours in a boat with that kid was enough to make me quit.

Now I just go into town and have a few beers at the VFW. There's a new buxom young bar girl there to whom I always give a big tip. Every once in a while, after I leave the bar I take a ride out to the old logging camp by the lake and go through the trash.

That's my life, and without making fun of people on this blog, it would just be that much bleaker.

Pity me.

Maybe zouk is tancredo, have you ever seen them together?

no, lyle, it is you who show "zilch," in terms of reasons you prefer hillary. when you say "Obama ... is a good speaker and does appeal to the folks in the dream world" - how does that qualify as any kind of an argument? no, to refute someone's policy ideas you must first know what they are, and explain why you disagree with them and prefer the ideas of your candidate. that's political discussion. "dream world" in name-calling. which do you prefer?

zouk need his meds--badly. anybody got any meds for zouk?

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, is speaking out to prevent TV's popular "Dog the Bounty Hunter" from being extradited to Mexico to face charges there.

Now, Tancredo is making his fight for Duane "Dog" Chapman part of his presidential campaign by posting a letter to the Mexican government and a petition online.'

Clearly, Tancredo's running on a 'protect guys who've commited crimes' platform.

I think zouk somehow got my phone number - someone keeps calling and hanging up. Stop it zouk. I know its you.

careful, now your beginning to sound like zouk.

I am glad I am not the only one to recognize that evil, lying zouk for what he is - a monster.

'BOSTON (AP) -- Republican Mitt Romney believes the United States needs to increase its defense spending, '

What he means is 'increase taxpayer subsidization of republican contractors'

Why not just just give everything we have to Halliburton and get it over with? Oh, I forgot.. we already did and then some. Perhaps our grandchildren will be able to pay off our national debt.

sorry lylepink, i gotta respond to your last post.

Blarg: Obama has shown me zilch
-its only april, give the guy a chance to put out policy ideals.the same can be said of hillary.

Granted he is a good speaker and does appeal to the folks in the dream world. We are in the real world and sooner or later folks are going to realize that as a FACT.
-ok here in the real world he's drawing crowds and getting more media coverage.

The dems will be on the same page on most issues, and we must think of the support they will have in the Congress.
-does the phrase "hearding cats" mean anything to you? speaker pelosi had a hell of a time trying to get dem votes on board to for the iraq spending bill.not to mention sen reid even getting 51votes in the senate with 2 rep senators voting with the dems.

Hillary has shown she is very popular in the Senate and the House
-can you prove that? polls? quotes? and endorments are not the same if they are only for the primaries.

she is not as popular due to the far left wing of some there
-careful, now your beginning to sound like zouk.

Hillary is by far the leader
-if we just voted for the front runners we would be talking about president joe liberman or president howard dean right about now. anything can happen between now and next january.
personally im not defending obama but come on. hillary is too polarizing to even nominate. but hey if you want to vote for hillary go ahead. just dont expect others to do so.

"I have tried to think"

keep trying until you get it right.

Blarg: Obama has shown me zilch. Granted he is a good speaker and does appeal to the folks in the dream world. We are in the real world and sooner or later folks are going to realize that as a FACT. Andy R: The debates will mean little unless someone makes a serious gaff. The dems will be on the same page on most issues, and we must think of the support they will have in the Congress. Hillary has shown she is very popular in the Senate and the House, she is not as popular due to the far left wing of some there, but with Nancy Pelosi on her side, this will be less of a problem. I have tried to think of most things that are likely to come about and Hillary is by far the leader.

zouk is a nazi and is the source of all evil in the world. I think he is stalking me. But my super powers will not fail me.

So how do "social conservatives" differ from neo-conservatives? Are they just a "gentler" version of the war-mongers, instead focusing more on abortion and gay rights?

Iowa and New Hampshire people, I believe, react well to sincere, down-to-earth people. That's why their primaries are called "retail politics." The candidates who project those qualities are likely to do well.

Hillary will struggle, if she appears too programmed. Obama needs more substance than just a "hope" sermon. If Edwards has an agriculture plan, it's time to show it; the haves vs have-nots will only get a small audience. Richardson is real, but he's off in North Korea, polishing his foreign-policy bona fides.

On the other side, everybody's dad looks like McCain, but that's not always good, and the "Baghdad bite" made him look ridiculous. Slick Rudy has 9/11 creds, but lots of negatives, especially carrying Bernie Kerik around his neck. Mitt is glossy and rich, and will probably claim he has been a farmer all his life. Tommy Thompson simply doesn't have enough coin to campaign statewide, even though his Midwest connections will help him, much like Brownback and less so for Huckabee.

This would probably be Fred Thompson's best chance to pull a stunning upset, but he may enter too late. He's probably looking to SC to start his ascent. It could be a good strategy--provided that no one else builds momentum in the meantime.

I personally favor Richardson of all the announced presidential candidates. However, Obama is intriguing. I think he is striking a chord with a lot of people when he speaks of going beyond partisanship. He also can speak to religious voters in terms they understand. He addressed Pastor Rick Warren's church and was very warmly received. If he can continue to impress people as a leader who can move beyond partisanship, he might surprise a lot of people.

Ultimately, I think he does not have the experience to be President (of course neither did the incumbent when he was elected).

are social conservatives up for grabs?
uh chris if you actually left that beltway bubble for a day or two you would know that they HAVE NO CANIDATE!McCain is a shameless panderer.rudy g has multiple marriages and is for gov funded abortions. hukabee and brownback is for illegal immigration.fred (law and order)thompson has been already shot down by dobson.and newt is too slimy to consider(unless desperation sets in)

honestly who is social cons last best hope?
heres what i think is going to happen, rudy gets the gop nom, setting off a 3rd (or multiple)party challenge. rudy vs hillary, um try rudy vs ron paul(libertarian)vs. roy moore(social conservative)vs.tancredo(anti immigration)vs bloomberg(independant)vs chuck hagel(unity 08)vs hillary.

'I can't think for myself so that is all I can really do - find petty things about others. you may discover that I have added nothing of substance to this blog. I really just come here to annoy people.'

we knew that already, zouk

"technically legal but rare and sleazy"

Like collecting money from monks.'

zouk again.

Gingrich can't win -- this morning he admitted global warming exists:

"I believe it is a fact that the computer simulations, which are only computer simulations, show that over the next century there is a probable increase in the sea level between 7 and 23 inches," he said. "It's very important between 7 and 23 inches over the next century -- very different then the sense we'll be in a catastrophe one day."

If the seas rise two feet, most of our coastal cities will be obliterated. How will we prepare for that? And that's just one of many, many effects, including drought all over the southwest, which will lead to enormous shortfalls of water [already happening]. But his answer of course is -- tax breaks.

Wouldn't you know it?

proudtobe, just ignore Loudon and the anonymous coward. They are haters (and probably 15 yrs old, using mommy's computer without permission) who have nothing better to do than flame a WaPo blog, adding nothing to the debate.

I can't think for myself so that is all I can really do - find petty things about others. you may discover that I have added nothing of substance to this blog. I really just come here to annoy people.

Lylepink, I don't agree that Obama is just a media creation. Maybe at first but he has shown staying power and is really energizing the party faithful. I do feel that eventually he will fade some, but it sure hasn't happened yet. Also if you have ever seen him speak it is impressive, no matter what you think of his positions.
I am holding out my support until I can see all of them on a stage together. Will you change your tune if Obama woops everyone in the first few debates?

"technically legal but rare and sleazy"

Like collecting money from monks.

Nameless: 'you might want to learn punctuaton and you know, English, before you start calling people 'morons'. pretty funny.'
Before you start picking on bloggers for punctuation errors, you might want to make sure you don't misspell any words in your post.
Perhaps she was just typing fast and wasn't concerned with every comma...

What does it take to be a serious candidate, in your estimation? Clearly it's not money. Obama's recent fundraising has equalled or exceeded Hillary's. And it's not success in the polls, where again Obama is equalling or beating Hillary. (In terms of both money and popular support, Obama is absolutely destroying Edwards and Richardson.) And it's not political experience, since Obama has approximately as much experience as two of your serious candidates. So what's the deciding factor?

In VA, moron amd Moran are the same.

Blarg: Obama is a creation of the media. The serious dems are Hillary, Edwards, and Richardson. The rest are ego trips, IMO, and have about the chance of a snowball in you know where to get the nomination, much less be elected POTUS. I have tried to explain that the "Liberal" wing of the dems is about an idea of what I think the word "Vahalla", hope the spelling is correct, best describes. We dems must realize this is the real world and not something we can only wish for.

PISCATAWAY, New Jersey (CNN) -- Don Imus "has stolen a moment of pure grace from us," the captain of the Rutgers women's basketball team said Tuesday, responding to the uproar over the radio host's description of the players as "nappy-headed hos."

Essence Carson and other players spoke out at a press conference in their first public statements since Imus' inflammatory remarks last week.

"I would like to express our team's great hurt, anger and disgust toward the words of Mr. Don Imus," Carson said. "We are highly angered at his remarks but deeply saddened with the racial characterization they entailed."

Imus made the comments on his show Wednesday. He apologized on Friday and Monday before CBS Radio and MSNBC suspended him for two weeks.

Other players echoed Carson's reaction, saying Imus' insulting words and the resulting controversy overshadowed their achievements.

"Our moment was taken away -- our moment to celebrate our success, our moment to realize how far we had come, both on and off the court, as young women," said sophomore forward Heather Zurich. "We were stripped of this moment by degrading comments made by Mr. Imus last Wednesday. What hurts the most about this situation is that Mr. Imus knows not one of us personally."

loudon, When Keyes decided to use campaign funds for his salary, that discouraged a lot of Republicans. This is technically legal but rare and sleazy.

"They call me Doctor Dream and the doctor is in" -- Alan Keyes, introducing his radio show every day. The guy's a nut case, just like Kucinich on your side.

We will support a candidate who can win, you will run from a candidate who can't (Hillary).

loudon -- his daughter was gay
course, cheney's daughter is gay too and they still love him, but then he's the most hateful man in the country, so how could they not?

'It's the liberals we don't support moron.'

you might want to learn punctuaton and you know, English, before you start calling people 'morons'. pretty funny.

I remmember last time some con called me a moron -- they spelled it 'moran'...

hey proudtobeGOP: you and your fellow Goppers didn't show much support for Alan Keyes, despite his impeccable conservative credentials. You could fit his primary voters into a VW bug.

wonder why that was.

it's great that you can express support for people like Hutchinson and Powell, who have never run for president. not risking much there, are ya?

"they couldn't stand the idea of a black man or a white woman [or gay] as president."

coward, you are once again displaying your utter lack of knowledge or intellect.

As a R fiscally conservative military hawk who happens to be female, I would gladly support a female candidate such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson , or a black candidate...ever heard of Colin Powell?

Just because the dems have a lock on politcally correct candidates this time doesn't mean that Rs wouldn't support one if they ran.

It's the liberals we don't support moron.

The cons surely would turn out against obama or hillary -- they couldn't stand the idea of a black man or a white woman [or gay] as president. Remember, hatred and bigotry are the only things that really motivate them.

You sure can buy a lot of 'free' speech these days, if you can afford it.

Of course, the richer you are, the more 'free' speech you can get.

Which allows you to drown out the voice of those who can't afford as much 'free' speech as you can.

Lylepink, there are two posters named William here. The Solid Politics guy is just here to advertise his website; he's not the William who makes substantial and detailed posts.

If Obama is the weakest Democratic candidate, why is he doing so well in polling and fundraising? I'd assume that the weakest candidate is someone like Dodd, who absolutely nobody cares about.

proudtobe, you are exactly correct on that one - the GOP base will be uber-mobilized against either an HRC or Obama candidacy. They are hungry/desperate and will turn out for either McCain or Rudy.

If it's Mitt (or Newt), they'll stay home (for reasons we explored yesterday), and if the Dem candidate is someone reasonable like Richardson, likewise. Neither of those two scenarios are likely though.

Cons like Thompson because the grass is always greener and he's a very good actor, with presence and charisma. Libs like Gore because he's a High Priest of the Church of Global Warming, reminds them of the Bubba glory days, and has stayed above the campaign fray.

MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL SPEECH

Correction to my last post. I agree with all that signed their post, except William.

george will is a decaying gas bag

"We only meet with Syria, said Reid. We know who is with us and who is against us."

either sign your name or get off the board, zouk. do you really think you're fooling anyone, ignorant coward?

I agree with all the previos posts except William, who is trying to show support for Obama, when he knows full well that Obama is the weakest of the dems. Come on now William, try and be a little bit honest for a change.

Thompson is better than McCain for two (similar but distinct) reasons:

1. Thompson isn't in the Senate, and hasn't been in several years. That means he hasn't had to deal with all of the votes McCain has. Nobody dislikes Thompson because of his votes for campaign finance reform or defense of the Iraq War. Thompson hasn't been involved.

2. Thompson isn't in the race, so he hasn't made any mistakes yet. Any candidate makes some errors during their campaign, or at least does things that their opponents can claim are errors. Thompson hasn't done anything wrong, because he hasn't done anything at all.

Basically, Thompson is a black box. You can think whatever you want about him, because there's no evidence to the contrary. And that's why people like him. Al Gore has some of the same quality; he's uninvolved in the recent political scuffles, both in Congress and on the campaign trail. If these guys actually enter the race, they'll lose support once they start actively campaigning. (Not to say that Thompson or Gore wouldn't be good candidates. But it's easy to support someone who isn't running and has nothing to defend.)

But Rudy is still holding a 5-point lead.

From http://www.solidpolitics.com

Obama is soaring in the most recent national poll, but more impressive is Giuliani's Southern firewall.... Rudy leads McCain by 1-point in South Carloina and by 5 points in Alabama....

I hear what you are saying I just don't understand why? Its funny that the Republicans don't like the most experienced and conservative in the bunch (McCain), and the Democrats don't seem to like the most experienced and conservative in the bunch (Clinton).
Basically Americans don't like experienced conservatives. Looks like our next president will be an unexperienced liberal.

JD and AndyR, I agree with you guys and I sure hope you're right about the social conservative movement losing steam.

The pendulum is due to swing back now; but the prospect of Clinton II or Obama presidency will surely mobilize the base in '08, unlike '07 where Rs stayed home and accepted defeat.

Iraq is the defining issue of our time.

Not campaign finance, not abortion, not gay marriage.

Conservatives, don't ignore McCain!

The Arizona senator is further to the right than current GOP darling Rudy Giuliani.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg10apr10,0,292153.column?coll=la-opinion-center

Andy R

The Republican base deeply distrusts McCain because they do not like mavericks and are suspicious of anyone who gets good press. This is despite the fact that he is the most consistently conservative of the three leading GOP candidates.

I agree with JD that the 'social conservative' movement has lost its steam. Idealogical movements are started and sustained by their leaders. Bush was the reason the soc-con group gained so much promenance because he could talk to them about god, and gays and in the same breath tell the wall-street types that his real concern was lowering rich peoples taxes. Also Bush was close enough to that down-home southern NASCAR guy that the Reagan Republicans would put up with his extreme social views.

Romney is trying to do the same thing, except the soc-cons don't trust him. McCain is good with the Reagan Republicans but the Wall Street folks hate him. Rudy is definitly liked by the Wall Street crowd, but the soc-cons will torpedo him eventually. Enter Thompson
The Wall-Street type like him OK, the Reagan Republicans seem to think he is OK, but I am not sold that the soc-cons will back him.
What I don't get is why is Thompson better then McCain? They share very similar views, and McCain has more experience, and has a strong following with independent voters.

Listen carefully: Adultery doesnt matter. Nor does divorce. Not in this day and age.

As for social conservatives - their day has come and gone. Fiscal conservatives and law and order will rule in Iowa (and throughout).

Chris, this is insulting. Calling Dobson and Robertson and Ralph Reed and the rest of the Fundimentalist pseudo-christian whack jobs "social conservatives" is akin to calling the Nazi's "liberals". Dobson, et al are in it for the money and power. They could give a rat behind about morality or faith or anything else and have proven this time and again. So, how about we call the leaders of this movement "greedy swine" and the followers "delussional devil worshipping fools".

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday turned down President Bush's invitation to meet at the White House next week to try to break through the stalemate over Iraq war spending bill, charging the invitation came with "preconditions."

"We only meet with Syria, said Reid. We know who is with us and who is against us."

Fred may run and that could help the party to get back to its roots and put the country first for a change. Neither party seems willing to do that, though.

http://www.squidoo.com/fredthompsonmovies/

Back then, Thompson believed, implausibly, that voters are "deeply concerned" about campaign finance reform. Today, many likely voters in Republican primaries are deeply concerned about what Thompson and others have done to free speech in the name of "reform,"

George Will

Problem is, Fred Thompson's not running. May I remind everyone that Fred Thompson supported John McCain over George Bush in 2000.

Fred Thompson was also a strong supporter of McCain-Feingold.

Chalk it up to short-term memory loss; the right wing of the party continues to disparage the most conservative declared candidate out of the current crop.

I prefer the husband forgiving hillary who will accept being cheated on with an intern. better to stay married and cheat than actually divorce.

We Liberals want to make all republican actions seem like a crime while hiding all our actual crimes.

You're right, there's probably a quarter of the country who would vote for a rabid dog if they were told it was 'conservative' -- and in fact, they have. Tom Delay was in office for quite awhile.

But as a popular movement, social conservatism is as dead as its parent 'movement' conservatism. It killed itself with excess and extremes of hate, greed, hubris, incompetence and stupidity.

'Or, a figure like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) could enter the race and unify social conservatives behind him.'

This is the lunacy of 'social conservatives' ... if they would vote for a lowlife scum like newt, a 3-time serial adulterer, who started seeing each wife while still married to the previous one, who divorced his first wife while she was having cancer surgery, and met the third when she was just 19 and he was middle-aged--how could you possibly say they are 'conservative'?

Obviously, the word has entirely lost its meaning, CC, and you and these rest of DC insider pack should come up with a new term that actually means something.