As far as the fusion stuff goes, I never said it was last year, I just said I don’t agree with the application of the term that it is as over-whelming a factor as you give it credit. If it were, Rudy would be a complete non-factor in this race. He is the farthest thing from the “fusion” candidate running. Romney would be way out ahead. As it is, things are not playing out at all for the “fusion” candidate. Therefore, I think the fusion concept is flawed somehow. That somehow is the media believes it to be true, therefore talks about it all the time, but the average Republican voter doesn’t.

We’ll see how it pans out. My guess is the average Republican voter has seen the “fusion” element go too far and will swing back a little more to the middle. If it doesn’t, then it’s the Dems for the taking.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary
Main Entry: proxy
Pronunciation: ‘präk-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural prox·ies
Etymology: Middle English procucie, contraction of procuracie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin procuratia, alteration of Latin procuratio appointment of another as one’s agent
1 : the act or practice of a person serving as an authorized agent or substitute for another —used esp. in the phrase by proxy
2 a : authority or power to act for another b : a statement or document giving such authorization; specifically : an oral consent or written document (as a power of attorney) given by a stockholder to a specified person or persons to vote corporate stock
3 a : a person authorized to act or make decisions for another b : something serving to replace or substitute for another thing

I was using the definition 3B highlighted above. I was only asking if the 3 of you supported Mitt Romney – you being a proxies (in that sense of the word) for the various factions of the Republican Party to determine whether he has a chance. We already determined that Rudy had no chance, as you are the only one of the three that supports him. But I see you are not having as much fun with this game as I am, so I’ll drop it.

One other clarification. “Loyal Bushies” is not my term. It is a term used by Republicans within this administration to describe Republicans they trusted. Specifically:

“The White House has repeatedly claimed that the president had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to fire those United States attorneys who were not, in the words of AG Gonzales’s former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, “loyal Bushies.”

Since you took the time to outline your views on a variety of issues (even thought it has nothing whatsoever to do my use of the word proxy or what I was asking in my comment), I feel I should return the favor and throw my own views against the Moonage filter:

1. Pro abortion on demand.[MW - Agree, but I recognize the arbitrariness of the moment of birth as the moment for granting a baby full legal status as a human being]
2. Pro strong military. [MW - Agree]
3. Although I don’t agree with the pro-religious incentives, I don’t think they should be excluded as they were in the past based on the church-state separation of powers.[MW - not sure what this refers to, but if it is the Faith Based Initiatves, we have learned that it was used to a large degree as a political slush fund by Karl Rove to try buy favor among relgious organzations in districts and states where Bush needed support. A lesson in corroption and cynicism]
4. More stem cell research money, but think embryonic stem cell research is not necessary and would fall at the bottom of my funding, if it got any at all.[MW - If this line of research is as promising as it is promoted, I'd think it could be adequately funded in the private sector. However, if you are going to fund it from the government, I would completely leave it to the scientists to decided the best way to spend it. If they think embryonic research should be the top priority, it should.]
5. pro-nuclear power.[MW - Agree]
6. think the ten commandments should be allowed to be displayed. However, if the demand is there, so should excerpts from the Koran or any other religious document since this is a melting pot of societies.[MW - I don't really care. But being a Kama Sutro devotee, I'd have to insiste of having some of favorite positions displayed next to ten commandments]
7. Believe in military interventions if the need arise.[MW - "need" being the very tgricky word here - I'd Agree]
8. Don’t believe in nation building. ( In simpler terms, we should have taken Hussein out and left then.)[MW - Agree, but I am going to question your sincerity on this one, unless it is a recent conversion. If you really agreed with this, you would have supported Kerry in 2004 as I did]
9. Strongly anti-UN as a military option.[MW - Disagree. They are mostly useless, but sometimes needed to to impart global credibility and sanction to an action. As the most powerful nation on Earth, we should be cognizant of how we are percieved and humble in how we use that power.]
10. Think we should negotiate with whoever is willing to sit at the the table so long as they play by our rules alone.[MW - I think you are confused. That is not negotiation, that is dicatation]
11. Believe in lower taxes and less social services. A lot less.[MW - Generally agree, but if you are going to support massive increases in discretionary spending and entitlement spending as this administration did, or call on the country to fight a wildly expensive war, as this administration did, then the fiscally responsible path is to raise the revenues to pay for it, and not pass that cost to our children in deficits and inflation.]
12. Believe conservatives make better judge, liberals make better lawyers.[MW - no opinion - but I'd like to see a rough parity in the judiciary]
13. Believe conservative and liberal should be spelled with small letters because there is no conservative or liberal party. They are adjectives to describe a person.[MW- fine]
14. Believe Libertarians think they are closer to Republican ideology only because both core party values are based in smaller government. That’s it. If the Republicans were staying truer to their core values, the Libertarians would be described as they were 80 years ago as anarchists. [MW- You are still very confused about libertarians. For someone who gets bent out of shape about categorizing Republicans, you sure are adamant about pounding every libertarion square peg into the same round hole]
15. Think the Republican party would be much better served getting religion out of their political agenda because it cuts too many ways that have nothing to do with government.[MW - Maybe true, but they can't get elected that way. They need the fusionist alliance to win national elections. Full stop,]
16. Think the Democrats would be much better served adopting some religious core values as they are now perceived as being too anti-religion due to being hijacked by a small core group.[MW - Probably true, but it still comes across just as phoney and false to me as when see Repulbicans do it.]

OK, still think I’m Loyal Bushie? [MW - Given that only criteria for being a "loyal bushie" is to support the President, nothing on the rest of your list is even relevant. But since you don't like Republican Kyle Sampsons terminology, I won't use it anymore.]

( Gotta wonder why in the previous comment or so you would quote a fusion person as your evidence that fusion is a party-wide issue? You did exactly what I am criticizing the media of doing. Quote someone in Nebraska that isn’t employed by media and I would think more about it before discarding it.)[MW - I was just providing you some historical background to the fusionist history in the Republican party, showing this is not something new, but the fiscal/social evangelical/libertarion fusionist alliance goes back to Meyers work in 1962. It was just the firs citation that came up in google. I don't understand what you are objecting to]

Sure, I’m game for a proxy test. Take these parameters and proxy me to one of the three categories listed:

1. Pro abortion on demand.
2. Pro strong military.
3. Although I don’t agree with the pro-religious incentives, I don’t think they should be excluded as they were in the past based on the church-state separation of powers.
4. More stem cell research money, but think embryonic stem cell research is not necessary and would fall at the bottom of my funding, if it got any at all.
5. pro-nuclear power.
6. think the ten commandments should be allowed to be displayed. However, if the demand is there, so should excerpts from the Koran or any other religious document since this is a melting pot of societies.
7. Believe in military interventions if the need arise.
8. Don’t believe in nation building. ( In simpler terms, we should have taken Hussein out and left then. )
9. Strongly anti-UN as a military option.
10. Think we should negotiate with whoever is willing to sit at the the table so long as they play by our rules alone.
11. Believe in lower taxes and less social services. A lot less.
12. Believe conservatives make better judge, liberals make better lawyers.
13. Believe conservative and liberal should be spelled with small letters because there is no conservative or liberal party. They are adjectives to describe a person.
14. Believe Libertarians think they are closer to Republican ideology only because both core party values are based in smaller government. That’s it. If the Republicans were staying truer to their core values, the Libertarians would be described as they were 80 years ago as anarchists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Party_of_Canada
15. Think the Republican party would be much better served getting religion out of their political agenda because it cuts too many ways that have nothing to do with government.
16. Think the Democrats would be much better served adopting some religious core values as they are now perceived as being too anti-religion due to being hijacked by a small core group.

OK, still think I’m Loyal Bushie?

( Gotta wonder why in the previous comment or so you would quote a fusion person as your evidence that fusion is a party-wide issue? You did exactly what I am criticizing the media of doing. Quote someone in Nebraska that isn’t employed by media and I would think more about it before discarding it. )

In New Hampshire, Romney leads both McCain, who won there in 2000, and Giuliani, who leads virtually all the national polls. In Iowa, his campaign’s organizational depth recently drove Giuliani and McCain to drop out of an August GOP presidential straw poll — seen as a trial run for next year’s first-in-the-nation caucuses — rather than risk a costly and embarrassing defeat at the hands of their lesser-known rival.

It is not clear to me that you have correctly identified the best/most likely fusion candidate. Romney (only Republican candidate with one wife), and talking a good game on vetos/cutting spending is looking like he may fit the bill.

He is my third favorite Republican hopeful. I am impressed with his Clinton-esque ability to change conviction as needed and willingness to be influenced by the polls. I feel very confident that I can ignore anything he is saying now to get the nomination, and trust as President he will get us out of Iraq since 65 -70% of the electorate will be polling that way.

How about a proxy test? AP,SW, Moon? Mitt work for you?

Something just ain’t adding up here.

– the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.

I do not feel any of us are a substitute for what you were presenting. Regardless of who invented the fusion theory, I think it’s inaccurate and the basis for most of the misperceptions that has dogged media for the last decade particularly. And, for some strange reason, this week’s polls have Giuliani seven points ahead of the “fusion” candidate even though the “fusion” candidate hasn’t taken the opportunity to expose himself to the glaring heat of speaking to an audience. I truly feel that if the “fusion” candidate does announce, he’ll soon trip all over himself as every candidate does. So, even though none of us in this discussion are supporting Giuliani, and two are very openly opposed for different reasons, he still seems to have a very broad base of support.

Why is that? You haven’t answered that question and it flies 100% in the face of the “fusion” theory. There’s got to be some reason.

Moon and AP,
No you did not hit the nail on the head with that “Libertarian” definition. Not even close, and you also fail to make the small “l” cap “L” distinction. I was a bit disappointed, as I thought Ken had given you a pretty good education over at CE. I guess it did not stick. Here is a refresher, including the distinction between Libertarians and anarchists.

It is not clear that you understands that I am only using the terms “evangelicals” and libertarians” to identify the key constituencies of Republican electoral success because those were terms that Sager use in his book. If you prefer “fiscal and social conservative”, fine. The name is not important. The point is that the Republicans cannot win when these groups are not on the same page with a candidate.
Also, Sager’s book is only commenting on the state of the Republican fusionist alliance, he did not invent the meme. It has been pretty much dogma among Republican strategists for years, of which karl Rove is the most recent proponent. Frank Meyer is usually credited with formulating and rationalizing the strategy:

“In his important 1962 book, In Defense of Freedom, Meyer writes that “the Christian understanding of the nature and destiny of man” is what conservatives are trying to preserve. Both traditionalists and individualists should therefore acknowledge the true heritage of the West: “reason operating within tradition.” This theory was later dubbed “fusionism,”

Finally, I said I thought you guys were good proxies for these Republican elements, I didn’t say they represented your exclusive views or mean you were defined/labeled by those terms in any way. I’ll stand by that statement. Two of the three of you are opposed to Giulliani. Prediction: Not only can Rudy not get elected, he cannot get the nomination. Too bad, he is my fourth favorite Republican candidate.