RINO or Conservative: Who Scores Best?

"Would appreciate your input on this thread."

You didn't ask me, but I would like to throw in my two cent's worth.

A poll or an evaluation such as yours will always depend on who is writing the questions and what those questions or criteria are.

For instance; I could write a quiz or poll that would put my own favorite candidate in the best light, and most likely would even make you believe he is your favorite as well.

FYI; the pollsters already know this.

Furthermore, even after you gather all the talking points from the other FReepers, who is going to evaluate each candidate using those criteria?

This is a very good exercise, and will no doubt generate much discussion, but in the end will prove nothing.

Also, if each of the FReepers who offer their input all had exactly the same background and education, they would then be on the same footing.

As it is however, we are all very different, and we all have different opinions of the politicians running.

A few will favor my candidate, and some will prefer yours, but we will never all agree on one.

241 posted on 01/15/2008 7:57:58 PM PST by Designer

Thanks for the dedication to dissect all the issues before us in one easy to understand concept.

As it stands now it looks like Fred Thompson just can’t pull off the primaries to be a shoe in at the convention, yet we need him to represent the true conservative values in America.

I’d like to see a pre-convention pact between Romney/Thompson with a public statement stating their goals as a team to take back America and supporting the principles of our Founding Fathers.

It’s probably unconventional, but we are in unconventional times and need to rally around a team we can support. It would also put the DEMS in a position to come out with who they would support as their VP on a ticket. The last thing we need is an Obama/Hillary or visa-versa ticket. The DEMS will do anything to be in the White House.

242 posted on 01/15/2008 7:58:51 PM PST by not2worry ( What goes around comes around!)

I don’t understand the chart that you made, although I agree with your conclusion (I think) that if I cannot have President Fred, I will be fine voting for Mitt.

243 posted on 01/15/2008 7:59:15 PM PST by Grunthor (If I don't get to Carley Simon's house I'll never know if that song was about me.)

"Good points."

Thanks, DWar.

You have a very interesting thread going here. Unfortunately, I will be on the road all day tomorrow, so will pick it up again on Thursday.

244 posted on 01/15/2008 8:05:21 PM PST by Designer

245 posted on 01/15/2008 8:10:49 PM PST by gruna

To: DWar; Honeybunch

If I can't have Hunter, my first choice, or Thompson, my second choice, which one makes me the least ill? That is what it boils down to, isn't it, at least today?

Without taking the time to read this whole thread, I can give you a brief answer as Mrs. Sooner and I were just talking about this... In descending order of illness coefficient:

1) Two-way tie:

McCain: Mentally ill, and involved in McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Keating Five. Vain and short-tempered.

Paul: Just plain nuts. Might be a fun guy as a congressman IF we weren't at war with Islamofascists.

2) The Second Huckster from Hope: It oughta be obvious. Things that separate him from the top tier of illness: The Fair Tax, which he is the only proponent of in this primary, (Boortz says Fred should have gone with the Fair Tax and he'd be ahead right now; I tend to agree.) Pro-2nd Amendment, pro-Israel. Gotta be fair about those three things but there's too much to not like about this guy otherwise. Releasing criminals by the hundreds, tolerating illegal immigration, and raising taxes in Arkansas all work against him. Plus saying he's gonna give $1B to whoever builds a car that gets 100mpg. Please... The more scrutiny, the more the Huckster looks like a total political whore.

3) Rudy: Cross-dressing might be taken lightly in New York, but I don't think so in Tehran or Moscow. Deserves some credit as a fiscal conservative and for cleaning up NYC, and going after the mob.

4) Romney: Massachussets liberal Republican. Biggest problem here for me is his stated position on 2nd amendment rights. Still, I could consider voting for him IF I thought there were a good chance of a conservative (see 1980 election) congress and an honest NRA to keep him in check. Success as a business exec is probably a better qualification than his being as Governor of Massachussets.

5) Fred: We're into favorable territory here. I wish he had gotten in sooner, and I wish he had made The Fair Tax part of his campaign as The Huckster II had the good (political) sense to. No serious negatives; I wish he were a bit more telegenic at his age as The Gipper was.

6) Hunter: The Real Deal policy-wise and as a person, it would appear. Lousy campaign organization also, it would seem. Realistically, he might make a good VP for Fred and (this is a question) might he bring in California for him as a running mate?

Hunter or Thompson are my first choice. Mitt or Rudy I MIGHT be talked into voting for UNLESS there's a good independent on the ballot AND there's no doubt of whether my home state is going for the rat candidate, which would be the worst possible thing.

McCain and Paul are both lunatics. The Huckster from Hope is not insane like the other two, at least in my observation, but he just might be as big a political whore as the last century's Huckster from Hope. He's not dumb, though: Fair Tax, gun rights, and pro-Israel are all good positions.

I personally think the Fair Tax is where he gets much of his support. Speaking of CHANGE, it's an idea whose time has come; it's a shame none of the other Republicans have the cojones to support it.

246 posted on 01/15/2008 8:16:47 PM PST by OKSooner

Well thought out. Thank You.

247 posted on 01/15/2008 8:49:52 PM PST by DWar (The perfect is the enemy of the excellent!!)

“Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest…More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.”
-The Editors, National Review

248 posted on 01/15/2008 9:01:45 PM PST by americanophile

Maybe it’s time for JR to dust off the bug zapper and start zapping those who are here working against what this forum stands for.

What's would you have this forum stand for? Cryassing because Fred ran a crap campaign and Duncan Hunter is a nobody? You gotta move on eventually. No sense in sitting here stewing on the impossible. Go Mitt (with Fred as VP PLEASE!)

249 posted on 01/15/2008 9:14:08 PM PST by imd102 (Mitt & Fred in '08 - the only chance vs. Obama)

Romney could easily flip flop back to being a lib for the general election.

He could.. .but in truth; not likely. He lives 'Conservative values'; were he elected 'on them'; believe he will stay close by.

The truth of Rommey is that he IS an honest man; has courage of conviction - and smart enough to know when there is a better solution to an issue; and he knows and practices good leadership.

We can never predict what someone will do; but there is surely evidence in a man's life; as to how he stands; when challenged.

There can be no question as to where Mitt stands, personally. . .better than most of our candidates; and he stands up better than any Demrat.

250 posted on 01/15/2008 9:17:51 PM PST by cricket (Hucka-not)

Am amazed and impressed by the sheer details of this.

Looks like it falls out - practically speaking - to Mitt. And looks like that may be precisely what happens here. So far. . .

251 posted on 01/15/2008 9:19:59 PM PST by cricket (Hucka-not)

Romney could easily flip flop back to being a lib for the general election.

Agree, Romney's score in this matrix, which is not far below Thompson's, is based on his current positions, but I have no confidence that he would maintain those positions in the face of left-wing opposition. He'd cave and say he had no choice. However, although it would pain me, I could vote for Romney if he won the race. I could also support Rudy. One one of the key issues, the war, I believe Rudy would be great. I also believe that he would not be as easy for the MSM to roll as the other RINOs. So at least we know what we are getting.

Huckabee and McCain would lose by a lot, and I think their nominations would give us a good excuse to find and run a conservative 3rd party candidate. Lincoln ran as a 3rd party candidate in 1860, and won, then his 3rd party ended up taking over, and the Whigs disappeared. Whether we win or not, if the Conservative Party could get more votes than the RINO party, then it could be the start of a realignment, with the left-wing GOPers going to the Dems, and the Conservatives having a party to be proud of and a unified message.

Something to think about, and I think, only to be considered if the nominee is McCain or Huckster, proven libs who would kill the party anyway and who would lose the general election. We would lose nothing by this time voting our consciences.

252 posted on 01/15/2008 10:15:28 PM PST by Defiant (Hillary needs Obama in the race to make it seem she has experience by comparison.)

Great work. Thanks for the effort. I agree with most of the methodology and the values you assigned, and would come out with the candidates in the exact same order you have. Mitt would be 3rd choice, but a lot lower than Thompson, because I would not trust him to stick with the positions he is espousing at the moment. Even if he reverts to form, though, he is acceptable enough to justify voting for, and preventing a Dem from getting the White House. We do need to look to the future and find some conservatives who can electrify the now-dormant Reagan wing of the party.

253 posted on 01/15/2008 10:26:50 PM PST by Defiant (Hillary needs Obama in the race to make it seem she has experience by comparison.)

“What’s would you have this forum stand for?”

What would I have this forum stand for? It already stands for something. Here’s a little titbit from the FR home page:

“As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc”

~ This is conservative forum where conservative candidates are promoted. Flip is no conservative. Just because he’s ahead in the delegate count right now that doesn’t mean he’s a conservative. All it means is a lot of gullible people, including you, have been snookered by slick Mitt. Either that, or you have no clue what conservatism means.

JR recently posted this information below on another thread. If this is your definition of an outstanding conservative then you are clueless.

Well, it’s not just that Romney was for abortion before he was against it, or that under his watch and nanny state socialist legislation that he pushed under Ted Kennedy’s approving tutelage, Massachusetts now has Planned Parenhood $50 abortions on demand and also, as I understand, is the only state in the union that has actually enacted gay marriage, he has RINO history. But the buck doesn’t stop with Slick Willard.

Selected quotes:

Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”
- Boston Globe, March 2, 2006

“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.”
-2002 Questionnaire for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)
Boston Globe, July 3, 2005

“Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures.”
- National Review Online, February 11, 2005

“At a campaign appearance at Brandeis University in June 2002, Romney strongly endorsed stem cell research.”
- Boston Globe, December 17, 2006

“When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?’ “
- Boston Globe, July 7, 2005

“All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.”
- Romney’s 2002 campaign website

“Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference”
- A flier handed out at “Gay Pride” by the Romney/Healey Campaign

“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and a bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns [grammar in context] President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share…”
- Governor Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, October 6, 1994

In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004

“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007

Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, August 1, 1994

In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ “ Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”

Romney did not specifically endorse McCain’s bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, calling them “reasonable proposals.”

Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”
- Boston Globe, March 16, 2007

“Governor Romney…imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax ‘loophole’ closures….The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees. Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, we imposed in FY 2003 and FY 2005. Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004; $70 million for FY 2005; and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to backlash from business leaders.”
- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

Romney didn’t support President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)
- Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.

Governor Romney has changed his position on key campaign finance reform issues several times during public life. During his 1994 Senate campaign, he held far left positions that advocated for abolishing PACs and creating strict campaign spending limits.

- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney’s position on political free speech has undergone a radical evolution. During his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney took an outrageous position on campaign finance reform that put him to the left of the current McCain-Feingold legislation, arguing for campaign spending limits-unconstitutional even under Buckley v. Valeo-and the abolition of PACs:

“I personally believe that when campaigns spend the kind of money they’re now spending...and to get that kind of money you’ve gotta cozy up as an incumbent to all of the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members, and that kind of relationship has an influence over the way you’re going to vote...And for that reason I would like to have campaign spending limits and to say we’re not going to spend more than this in certain campaigns...I also would abolish PACS. You probably have one. I don’t like them. I don’t like the influence of money-whether it’s business, labor, or any other group. I do not like that kind of influence...”

In his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney proposed a radical new campaign finance system, in which privately-funded campaigns would be taxed 10% in order to fund publicly-funded campaigns as part of Massachusetts’ Clean Election Law in order to “spare taxpayers the burden of shouldering the entire expense of this program.” In 2003, he allowed a repeal of the Clean Elections Law to stand. ~

394 posted on 01/09/2008 10:22:38 PM PST by Jim Robinson

254 posted on 01/16/2008 4:06:48 AM PST by dmw (Aren't you glad you use common sense? Don't you wish everybody did?)

255 posted on 01/16/2008 4:34:33 AM PST by Freee-dame

Thanks for boring me to death. GO MITT!

256 posted on 01/16/2008 5:03:54 AM PST by imd102 (Mitt & Fred in '08 - the only chance vs. Obama)

You’re welcome. Let’s hope it doesn’t come down to having to tolerate the one that makes us the least ill.

257 posted on 01/16/2008 5:18:45 AM PST by OKSooner

All things considered, Romney is the best candidate to run against the Democrats. In terms of balancing conservative values, character, and electability, Romney is the only choice among this crop of candidates.

Hunter is conservative, but has no chance. Fred Thompson is next best on conservative values, but doesn’t come across well and can’t generate enough interest among Republicans to translate well into a good general election candidate.

Rudy has skeletons in his closet which will keep his candidacy from gaining serious traction. Huckabee and McCain are not conservatives and would be bad for the Republican party.

While some purists attack Romney as a flip flopper, most of this is based on decisions he made years ago. Like it or not, he is the only one who really has a shot and would be fiscally conservative.

258 posted on 01/16/2008 5:29:23 AM PST by CASchack

My concern is twofold. 1) Mormon evangalism is helped by mainstreaming Mormonism through election of Romney. 2) God is not kind to nations that stray from his word.

259 posted on 01/16/2008 5:41:46 AM PST by Greg F (Duncan Hunter is a good man.)

260 posted on 01/16/2008 5:47:36 AM PST by G Larry (HILLARY CARE = DYING IN LINE!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

Issue	Immediacy	Negativity	Changeability
				Giuliani	Huck	Hunter	McCain	Romney	Thompson
1- Stability of Personality	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	8	8	10	5	10	10
2- Electablity	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	8	5	2	10	8	5
3- Illegal Immigration	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	5	2	10	0	10	10
4- War in Iraq	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	10	10	10	10	10
5- War on Terror	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	5	10	5	10	10
6- SCOTUS appts	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	5	10	2	10	10
7- Guns & 2nd Amend	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	0	10	10	0	5	10
8- Business/infl/rec	Imminent	Powerful	Changeable	10	8	10	5	10	10
9- Lower Taxes	Imminent	Powerful	Changeable	10	2	10	2	10	10
10- Iran	Urgent	Devastating	Changeable	10	5	10	10	10	10
Top 10 Total				81	60	92	49	93	95

11- Pro-Life	Urgent	Devastating	Changeable	0	10	10	10	8	8
12- Healthcare- gov run	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	5	10	8	5	10
13- Soc Sec	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	10	10	10	10	8
14- Internet Neutrality	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	0	10	10	10	10
15- Internet Tax	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	0	10	10	10	10
16- Kyoto Treaty	Urgent	Devastating	Changeable	10	8	10	10	10	10
17- Global Warming	Urgent	Devastating	Changeable	0	0	10	0	5	8
18- Energy Indy	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	8	8	10	5	10	10
19- ANWAR Drilling	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	5	10	10	0	10	10
20- Globalism & Free Trd	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	2	8	8	2	2	2
Top 20 Total				146	119	190	117	173	181

21- Military Strength	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	10	10	10	10	10	10
22- Guantanamo	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	10	0	10	0	10	10
23- Waterboarding	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	10	0	10	0	10	10
24- Tax Reform	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	10	10	10	8	10	8
25- Gay Rights	Serious	Powerful	Unchangeable	0	10	10	5	8	8
26- CFR & 1st Amend	Serious	Powerful	Changeable	0	0	10	0	10	0
27- Crime	Serious	Strong	Changeable	10	5	10	10	10	10
28- Education	Serious	Powerful	Changeable	5	5	5	5	5	5
29- Death Penalty	Serious	Strong	Changeable	10	10	10	10	10	10
30- Tort Reform	Serious	Strong	Changeable	10	8	10	5	10	5
31- School Vouchers	Serious	Strong	Changeable	10	10	10	10	10	10
32- Federalism	Serious	Strong	Changeable	5	8	10	5	8	10
33- Affirmative Action	Serious	Strong	Changeable	5	8	10	5	8	2
All Issues Total				241	203	315	190	292	279

			Conservative= 10
			Conservative tendencies= 8
			Moderate or Unreliable=5
			Liberal tendencies= 2
			Liberal= 0