Posted on 12/30/2007 5:50:44 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball
I have a very simple question, and I'd really like your take on it. I don't mean this as antagonistic, but I'd really like to hear your answer.
Somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the people here on Free Republic consistently express their clear preference in poll after poll for Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter over Huckabee or Romney.
My question is: Why?
Why do you think, despite Romneys many millions spent and the claims of both Romney and Huckabee to be genuine conservatives, that Freepers haven't bought it? It is quite clear that most here are firm in their belief that neither Romney or Huckabee is an acceptable conservative. At least at this point of the game.
Why do we think this - in your opinion?
And then, why are we wrong?
Hank
Besides her negatives are already at 49%, its near impossible for her to achieve a win with negs that high.
Ronald Reagan was not a RINO. Reagan was an active registered DEMOCRAT that campaigned for Roosevelt, Truman, Adlai Stevenson (Yes Reagan worked for Stevenson and not IKE), and he campaigned for Kennedy. Reagan was an active liberal and he put his money where his mouth was. He was a large donor to the Democratic party for decades.
Reagan was in fact a true liberal that changed his stripes only when in his 50s. Then he became known as the definition of a conservative.
As Winston Churchill said many year ago, "If you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart. And if you are not a Conservative at 40 you have no brains." Churchill was a liberal member of Parliament and one of the leaders of the Liberal party. Then in mid life he crossed the isle to the Conservative party and in a few years was the leader of the Conservative party. Churchill became England's most famous and effective Conservative Prime Minister. But he started out as a liberal.
Tons of people have changed their minds. Teddy Roosevelt started out a conservative but by the time he became president he had become a real liberal. That is why he came back to the USA and did all he could to defeat conservative Taft and elect his fellow liberal.. a Democrat named Wilson in 1912.
Many people are ignorant of history. Few express their ingnorance so succinctly.
If I were considering Huckabee based on my religious ideology (I am a Christian) I would consider his actions, without going so far as to question his faith. The fact that Huckabee has made untrue political statements and has taken money that shouldnt have been his would make me wonder what is his view of the Ten Commandments.
I would also investigate the reports that Huckabee accepted money from embryonic stem cell researchers.
However, both have records which I would question politically. Huckabee rolled out the welcome mat for illegal aliens and raised taxes. Romney took little action against the influx of illegal aliens until his closing days in office.
Of the two, Romney is clearly the better pick because
That being said, I think Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson are better choices.
“Somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the people here on Free Republic consistently express their clear preference in poll after poll for Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter over Huckabee or Romney.
My question is: Why?”
Beats me.
Well there goes willard and the huckster.
taxper=taxpayer
ditto. For me the defining issues are gun ownership and illegal immigration. Romney is questionable on all two, but he had to survive in liberal MA so I can understand his past positions vs his current conversion. Hucklebee on the other hand was in a red state, and he did not need to be soft on illegal immigrants to survive politically. The only rationale I see is corporate influence (ie Tyson) or he genuinely believes in the soft approach (compassion ala GWB). Both men are my top picks because in a visual society, how you perform and appear on TV is important. Between the two I will lean towards Romney. Guliani is out of the question, because as a NY metro area resident, he was always a Dem on social issues and gun control. The only reason he ran as a GOP was to bypass the Dem primary system. Thompson is a bit slow and appears very old on TV. Last time we fielded a conservative like that was Sen Dole and though he was a rock bottom conservative, war vet and etc, he got clobbered.
Woodrow Wilson was a conservative Democrat(when there was such a thing) not a liberal!
“I know a leader and a good and successful person when I see one Mitt Romney.”
I know a good and successful CONSERVATIVE person when I see one—Mitt Romney—NOT!
This is the crap he's being saddled with. He spoke at a conference which included 'embryonic stem cell researchers'. He gave a speech on Diabetes - and was paid by the Diabetes' organization ...
Probably because the other candidates have so many faults and people don’t know a lot about Fred. It’s very easy to imagine he has the same conservative beliefs as they do.
Fluff like Hell.
Compare Duncan Hunter’s credentials and national security experience (and I might add, *military experience*) to that of Thompson or any other candidate.
He’s been the best friend our military could ask for on the House Armed Services Committee for more than 25 years, so where do YOU get off saying “not ready for prime time”?
You don’t know enough about a guy you claim to like.
Try reading up a little before you buy into those tired and untrue mantras about Hunter.
Huckabee did not say: "take this nation back for the Chamber of Commerce."
He did say: "I hope we...take this nation back for Christ."
that latter comment is a lot more strident than how you portray it:
Gov Huckabee said he was a Christian...
I wouldn’t call Dole a rock solid conservative.
The premise seems to be that Romney and Huckabee are trying to fake being more conservative than they really are, as if they are as conservative as Thompson or Hunter, and your "question" is why hasn't their fakery succeeded.
But who says they are trying to do anything of the sort? Sure, they would like hardcore conservative votes (and wouldn't Thompson and Hunter like more centrist votes?), and I don't have an exact breakdown of what sort of messages they've been trying to send in their campaigns, but I doubt that either Romney or Huckabee would deny that they're not quite as conservative as Thompson and Hunter. So: that's why Freepers like them less, cuz they're less conservative. Big mystery.
So we've established that Romney and Huckabee are less conservative than Hunter. But so what? Median Freepers are to the right of the median Republican voter. This is not a contest to see who's the most hardcore conservative. Someone will win that contest, but most likely the winner of that contest will not be the one who wins the primary. If I were a Romney or Huckabee supporter my answer to your question would be: "It doesn't matter."
“Why do you think 70 to 80 percent of the people here on FR support Thompson or Hunter?”
Well, obviously they like those candidates the best because they feel that they represent their views the best. As far as my opinion, I think that Hunter is definitely not a realistic winner and Thompson isn’t really looking that way any more either.
At some point you have to acknowledge that the strength of a candidate will be reflected in their performance in the race. Neither of those two candidates are doing well right now. It’s conceivable, but doubtful, that Thompson might make a dramatic turnaround but I wouldn’t hold my breath for Hunter.
I really liked the way the editors of the National Review analyzed the candidates in their endorsement of Romney and I find myself very much in agreement with what they said. You look for the most conservative viable candidate. They think that is Romney, and I agree.
“Beats me.”
Because we ARE conservatives.
What really matters is that the rinos have 70 to 80% of the voters preferring someone else.
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.