At quick glance, Romney deserves a hell of a lot less than 5 for health care.
I just read your profile page and found out you’re a pastor. My apologies for dropping the h-bomb in my last post to you.
I have to take strong exception to your giving Giuliani a "10" on SCOTUS appointments. His record is of appointing liberal judges. He has said that Presidents choose justices who think like them. His mention of "strict constructionists" should give little relief as the author of Roe v. Wade (Blackmun) was a "strict constructionist" and judicial activist who helped advance some of the most destructive laws of our time.
That said, here are some categories I included in a similar analysis:
But I'll say this for ya, you made good use of it. Nice job.
Very interesting analysis, DWar. I took a “test” online and was shocked that the candidate who was more akin to my opinions on a variety of issues and sub-issues was Mitt Romney. Thompson would have been a close second. When comparing the two, the differences shown were more a difference of importance on the few issues. One must take these online tests with a grain of salt, of course, but I was left thinking that perhaps I should give Romney a second glance.
Would appreciate your input on this thread. Thanks.
Everything for McCain, Julie-Annie and Huckabee looks devastating...
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.
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.
“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
Looks like it falls out - practically speaking - to Mitt. And looks like that may be precisely what happens here. So far. . .
bump
Bump!
The biggest error for my candidate, Romney, is his score for GW. Read the info in the link below and I think you will agree he deserves a higher score in that cateogry. He has flatly rejected Al Gore's solutions to the GW hysteria saying:
"...Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations.... Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore."
In 2005, Governor Romney pulled Massachusetts out of a compact of Northeastern states requiring a reduction in power plant emissions of carbon dioxide because it would have caused continued economic decline in the state. (Robert Novak, "Romney gains by shunning CO2 caps," Chicago Sun-Times, 1/02/2006)
See more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#environmental
Additionally, his grade on healthcare could be higher. He got a proposal passed which was co-written and supported by the very conservative Heritage Foundation. It is a huge issue for Americans and it will be front and center when we try to fight it out with the dems. Mitt is the only GOPer with any viable plan or relevant experience on this issue. When compared to the dems, it will be a huge plus that he has a free-market based plan, not a negative.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#healthcare
Also, his gun number is too low. He received a B from the NRA and, somehow, he was able to loosen gun restrictions in one of the bluest states in the nation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#guns
Also, I think some people received grades that were too high given some bills they have supported, but I won't go there.
1. I don't think that Rudy Giuliani will be a 10 on SCOTUS. I think he's parsing his words in a way that will allow him to nominate people who will preserve Roe versus Wade and not see the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. If I believed that he'd be a 10 on SCOTUS, I'd be much less afraid of him.
2. I'd rate John McCain a little lower on the pro-life issue. He flirted with favoring legalized abortion when he ran in 2000. Rick Santorum has said that McCain hated any pro-life bill in the senate. He may have voted pro-life, but he worked to keep those bills from coming to the floor where he'd have to vote on them. At best, I'd give him a 5 on that issue. An 8 would be extremely generous.
3. I'd also rate John McCain a little lower on Kyoto. Whether he voted against it, his sympathy for global warming makes me distrust him too much for a 10.
If you were interested in adding one more issue to your table, you might consider "coat tails" - what effect would each candidate have on our chances of retaking Congress. I'd rate Rudy Giuliani as a 0. His being on the ballot would draw voters who would vote for Democrats in those races. I think Mike Huckabee would be neutral. He'd draw some extra religious conservatives who would vote for Republicans, but he'd also draw more anti-Christians who'd vote for the rest of the Democrat slate. John McCain might be neutral as well, but I just can't tell about him. I think Mitt Romney would be neutral. We'd lose a few evangelical Christian votes who would otherwise have voted for Republicans down the ballot, but we might gain some others who have started to think of the GOP as a regional party. I'd probably give Fred Thompson an 8 because he'd draw most regular Republicans without offending anyone too much. His only problem would be the regional candidate thing. Duncan Hunter would also get an 8. He's right on almost everything, but he doesn't have much charisma.
Bill
The best part is you don’t know how conservative Romney will be because up to this point, it would have been counterproductive in his political career to have been. That’s the best part about him. Huckabee, I mean come on, he’s in the south already. To me, he leans liberal if freed of his prior need to be a southern conservative. When I say leans liberal, it’s in a Catholic Priest sort of way. Not sure we need that right now re immigration.
If I as a conservative throw my vote away on a republican party who won't run a conservative, then there will not be any reason for them to consider running a conservative in the future. As I want my vote to count in the long run, not just the next four years, my vote will go to a conservative, even if there is no R in front of the name.
Whoa! That’s a lot of work, and you done good. I agree with your assessments. But the bottom line is, I will vote for the Republican in November, no matter who he is. I do NOT want Her Heinous or Barack Obama anywhere NEAR the Oval Office, come Jan, 2009.
Rudy should not be given a 10 on “military strength” because he was a draft dodger. He’s a wimp, not a warrior.
"RINO or Conservative: Who Scores Best?"