Posted on 02/14/2007 7:28:54 PM PST by rodomila
I used to think Free Republic was a site with mostly rational people. I can't understand why so many of you waste your time with Duncan Hunter fantasies. Really folks hallucinogenic drugs are illegal and bad for you too. Stop taking them !!! No one outside of the Hunter family and this website thinks he has the remotest chance of being elected President. The Ronald Reagan comparisons are idiotic. Reagan had been a two term Governor of the largest state in the nation. He had been a national household name for over 40 years when he ran in 1980. God only made one Ronald Reagan. Duncan Hunter, although he is a solid Congressman, is no Ronald Reagan. I'm a conservative and I would love to have a viable conservative to work for this election cycle. But we don't have one. McCain is a no go for me. I loathe the treacherous man and believe he is non-compos mentis (loony). That leaves Mitt and Rudy. Newt's entry would hopefully pull the other two to the right (which would be great), and he might even win the nomination (which would probably be bad as I don't think he would win the general election).
That would leave us with Hildebeast or even worse B. Hussein Obama. Therefore, although I'm pro-life, pro-gun, and anti the mainstreaming of homosexuality, I am trying to decide between Rudy and Mitt.
For me the war on islamo nazi psychos is the top issue and Rudy gets my vote on that one.
Issue two is finding a candidate who won't give in to global warming hysteria because that is the lefties preferred path currently to world government and destruction of our economic system. I have to look into Mitt's position on this because Rudy made some rather discouraging comments on this recently (although they were not as bad as originally reported here.)
Next is immigration. We need someone to enforce our laws and get control of the borders. Mitt seems to the right of Rudy on this but both have a way to go. Maybe Tancredo in the race can generate some movement.
Taxes - we need to keep the Bush tax cuts at the very minimum and hopefully get a bolder overhaul of the system.
Judges - we want young Scalias.
Spending restraint - I'm hoping that both, as successful businessmen, will hold the line on spending better than GWB who was a total disappointment in this area.
Let's try to move the viable candidates closer to us on the issues rather than engage in self defeating fantasies of "ideal" candidates who no one has ever heard of and who have never run any larger organization than a Congressman's staff.
Well said MM. Alot will also depend on what the political climate is 1-1/2 years from now. If Iraq is basically pacified, which it will be, and the gov't there gets its shit together (big question) then those opportunistic idiots like shrillary who ran left will be crushed by ANY conservative. And if we are in a hot war with Iran or some other country, then putting a dem in power must be stopped at all costs.
Gotta run. Adios.
..there is another candidate--and perhaps will be more before the process is through--mayor Rudy does not have it locked...
Right now, I can see my support going to one of three canddiates: Rudy, Hunter or Romney. I honestly like all three and have tried my best to keep abreast of what they have all said recently. I like all three candidates and I think all three would do a very good job as President. Again this is all based off of what I have read about the candidates recently.
I am leaning more toward Romney at this point, but I would vote for either Hunter or Rudy in the General Election. The one thing that really turns me off of Hunter is the way the Hunter supporters on this thread have behaved. Very rude. It's gone both ways, but from an objective point of view, the Hunter supporters are far worse. (This current thread not withstanding).
I have considered my support for candidates in the primaries as an open book. I want to know the facts, and find out about how each candidate stands on each issue. That is very important to me. Of equal importance is the candidate's electability. I look at each candidate, where they stand, their policies and ideas, how they talk, how they present themselves, etc and use that to base their electability. All three, Romney, Rudy and Hunter are electable candidates. Rudy has the most name recoginition with Romney following. In all honesty, Hunter has none. Granted, were he to win the nomination, then obiviously, the name recoginition would follow.
But let's really look at the big picture. Barak Obama wants to pull the troops out immediately. It won't be long until Hillary is shilling out the same mantra. Al Gore would do the same, Edwards the same. We all know what a horrible price the United States, Iraq, indeed the rest of the world would pay if that were to happen. I don't think that Romney, Rudy or Hunter would ever consider pulling troops out of Iraq. All three seem to be strong in their convictions on conducting the War on Terror.
Rudy has said he would nominate strict constructionsist ala Roberts and Alito and Scalia to the Supreme Court. Romney and Hunter would do the same. I am personally pro-life when it comes to the abortion debate, but I think it should be a state's rights issue. I believe Rudy and Romney have held the same idea. I'm not sure where Hunter stands on the issue, but I am sure based on posts on this forum that he is strictly pro-life. Does he think it should up to the states to decide?
I am pro-gun, personally and have been a card carrying member of the NRA for quite a while. Regardless of where a candidate stands on guns and the second amendment, I don't think there is a Republican candidate that will propose any infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights. They would the support of their party, members of COngress would not let that President get away with it. He or she would never do it. Democrats on the other hand, well it's almost a given that Obama, Clinton, Gore, Edwards et al WILL most assuredly try to limit our freedoms as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment. It's just in their blood. They have to. There is a base to appease and they will succor that beast with limits on gun rights.
All in all, I will support any Republican candidate who wins the Party's nomination. I would support Hunter 100%, Rudy 100% and Romney 100%.
Right now, Romney gets my support. Why? Because of all of the criteria I mentioned earlier: his stand on the issues and his electability are winning me over. I guess you can call me a liberal Rino, and all of the other names that people who aren't supporting Hunter right out the gate are being called. But just know, that name calling is really turning away a lot of support for Hunter on this thread. I could support Hunter, but the negativity is really turning me off. In all fairness, it's gone both ways, but I have seen a lot of Rudy and Romney supporters say that they would support Hunter if he got the nom, but the rigidity of the "Hunter Only" crowd is a huge negative in my column.
I tell this to you because I have read several of your posts asking the Hunter supporters to curb their name calling and negativity. You do hold a lot of influence in your opinion. Personally, I think very highly of you based on most of the posts of your that I have read.
Let's air the issues and the facts, let's have a good lively debate about the pros and cons of each candidate, that's what the primaries are for, but we can keep it civil. We are afterall the same party and of the same political persuasion. But I think too often these threads devolve into name calling and become very counter productive.
I disagree for one reason. Whereas I don't know of any Hunter supporters who have said it won't be an uphill battle to get him the nomination, and then the general election; Hunter's detractors almost without exception lack the humility to acknowledge that the coming months will (a) give him an opportunity to increase his name value and campaign funding; or (b) allow for any number of unforeseen events that could completely shake up the race in both parties. The Hunter naysayers consistently pronounce from on high that he has no chance, will never rise above single digits, etc. That attitude tends to provoke especially hostile responses.
Plenty of people said the Berlin wall would never come down, too. Great things never happen when small minded people are put in charge. Frankly, the only delusion is on the part of those who think that a pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-environazi candidate who sees California as a microcosm of mainstream America has a chance of being elected as a Republican.
"QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION - Are Rudy and Mitt in a battle for the anti-McCain crowd? Or are Mitt and McCain duking it out to be the STOP RUDY candidate?"
Neither one! Duncan Hunter is the man the base wants. This will show more and more as polls go by.
You claim to be a conservative, then support a conservative until he is bumped out.
Mitt/Giulian/McCain are all the same. They only vary by degrees. What you should be doing is focusing on puching a conservative and if he doesn't make it out of the primary. THEN push the GOP Candidate. What is so hard to understand there?
Duncan Hunter is the man!
That is just plain hilarious. Look at the language that Jim Robinson used in his last two polls. Maybe HE's really a D plant? :-)
Let's just say that Hillary (or someone equally as vile) gets the Democrat nomination and a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-defense, pro-borders, pro-small government, pro-low taxes, peace through superior firepower patriot gets the Republican nod. Who would you vote for in the general?
Looks like our true blue conservative did pretty well in our prior poll. Let's now see what happens if we nominate a social liberal who's okay with abortion, gay unions and gay rights is a gun grabber and is weak on illegal immigration. Who do you vote for in the general?
Try being LDS on this forum. You have to learn to ignore snarky, misinformed comments from people.
I agree with you. We can't discount a candidate this early because of name recoginition. A lot can happen in the next year and a half.
It's Hunter's uphill battle to get the nomination that gets my respect. I have absolutley no problem supporting him. I have kept my mind open to be able to listen to all candidates and decide by the time the primary rolls around.
I just don't see a lot of that from any of the "Hunter Only" crowd. That is also evident by the current "FR Poll". Too many are willing to let the country fall into the hands of the truly dangerous candidates, ie Obama, Clinton, et al, than throw their support to someone that they don't see eye to eye on 100% of the issues.
As for negative comments, of course they will illcit a negative response. That's why they use them. Ignore them, move on, or reply to them as courteously and respectfully as you would have wished to addressed. That's what I do.
We get crickets from our side as well. Here are two responses to essentially the same question asked in other threads and answered by Antoninus & Kevmo with no apparent responses yet.
To: Gelato
"Will you support Rudy Giuliani if he is the party nominee?"
Gee, when asked if he would support George Pataki over Mario Cuomo in 1994, Rudy Giuliani said, "no thanks."
The GOP owed no loyalty to this fraud.
72 posted on 02/15/2007 7:57:52 AM PST by Antoninus ("For some, the conservative constituency is an inconvenience. For me, it's my hope" -Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Posted by Kevmo to nopardons
On Bloggers & Personal 02/09/2007 4:13:45 PM PST · 54 of 70
***Why? Is this a GOP site? Did I stumble onto a Republican Party backroom and forgot that I signed my name in blood for 9 years? This is a CONSERVATIVE site and Duncan is a CONSERVATIVE candidate. Maybe you could get more traction going to a RINO site and pushing your favorite RINO candidate. Unfortunately, I have no burden to help you in finding such a website.
What's your point?
Well, I have held my nose and voted only once in my life. in '06. Being only 29 I realize my track record of choosing whether to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' (and i HATE tht terminology; more like the lesser of two liberals) I've had on whole, perhaps, less repulsive choices which is why 2006 was the first and only time I felt miserable casting a vote.
I'm not interested in a repeat performance. It's a conservative, or at least someone who is not a politician at their core or no one. Rudy, mcCain and romney are politicians.
Rudy is a Liberal politician that has it right on the war. He's basically Leiberman. I support Leiberman. As a member of the Democratic party. I have NEVER joined others in wishing he'd switch parties. If Rudy ran as a Dem tough on Defense and the netroots actually let him through while Reps nominated McCain or Romney? I'd vote Rudy. but i will NOT endorse the further liberalization of the GOP by endorsing a Liberal Republican for Prez.
McCain has no ideology other then whatever he believes best serves HIS efforts to be the would be King of America.
Romney will track in whatever direction he needs to, flip flopping all about, to get the political office he desires. He'll be conservative in Utah, liberal when running in MASS, then become more conservative in mass because he's running for the GOP primar vote nationally. Who the hell know what he'd do if he made it the the general election or even won the W.H. Which audience would he cater to? History suggests NOT conservatives.
So if you want my vote to keep a Dem out, hunter is the best option to support and help gain recognition. perfect? nope. but he does at very least have a fairly consistent conservative track record spanning decades on most of the key issues to the different GOP segments; spending is the main problematic area and that could be handled with a willingness to use a VETO.
The only oher area he may be deemed to have trouble is free trade, but the tradeoff is that his position would be appealing to the conservative block of Indy's/dems that turned on reps this last year. Reagan Dems. Blue collar Dems. Call 'em what you want, that stance would attract them. I'm willing to bet in greater numbers then free traders in the GOP are turned off.
If you can show me a better conservative candidate for '08, I'll listen. But promoting the other three will not get ANY support from this quarter.
Hey, I meant no offense by pointing out that you live in Rhode Island, I actually admire that kind of bravery! If I told you some of the places I've lived, it would sound like a 'Rat/leftist/liberal version of Hank Snow's "I've Been Everywhere".
Now as for your screen name, to paraphrase Andrew Dice Clay in 'The Adventures of Ford Fairlane' you just need something stuffed in your mouth, "throw a cheeseburger down your throat, we'll have a great time!" LOL
Same point as yours. You notice the sound of crickets when there's a pointed question asked and so do we when we ask & there's no response. If you want to respond to the answer to the question, feel free to respond to mine or Antoninus's. Because after all, we're getting crickets to the response to the same question.
Well again, tho -- I don't agree Rud's anti-2nd ammend. Or anti-God. Gays, I don't even understand why that's mentioned. Global Warming is all a joke, and I couldn't care less.
I don't personally see the same things you do.
I don't believe he's a gun-grabber. His gun control policies made sense for NYC. I don't believe he'd apply the same policies to the rest of the country.
Wife-cheating and gay-lovin . . . anyone who considers these political issues just doesn't share my values.
And being pro-choice doesn't make one a 'baby-killer'.
So, such over-the-top rhetoric does not, to me, help your cause.
Of course, the R.
Let's now see what happens if we nominate a social liberal who's okay with abortion, gay unions and gay rights is a gun grabber and is weak on illegal immigration. Who do you vote for in the general?
If the R is politically conservative -- smaller govt, strong on defense, etc -- I vote for the R.
To me, those are the 'key' issues. With the exception of guns -- and I see no evidence Rudy is a gun-grabber, his policies made sense in the high-crime NYC -- the rest of those issues are all distractions from the real job of Prez.
Join the "Duncan Hunter for 08'" ping list!
***Hi guys. Who is running the Duncan Hunter Ping list? Antoninus or US007? To whom should we direct ping list inquiries?
You miss the point. Is JimRob a democratic plant because he's using strong emotive language to portray the RINO candidates?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.