Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A question for Romney and Huckabee supporters
Vanity | 12/30/2007 | Hank Kimball

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: election; fred; fredthompson; gop; huckabee; hunter; mikehuckabee; postonexistingthread; primaries; primary; republican; republicans; rino; rinos; romney; romneytruthfile; thompson; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 461-466 next last
To: Strategerist
I used to think like that but then I realized that even as a moderate if you have to pick between say a Hillary and a Thompson just how dumb do you have to be to vote for Hillary. Most are not that stupid

Besides her negatives are already at 49%, its near impossible for her to achieve a win with negs that high.

81 posted on 12/30/2007 6:33:36 PM PST by rodguy911 (Support The New media, Ticket the Drive-bys, --America-The land of the Free because of the Brave-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: nerdwithamachinegun
a leopard doesn’t change it’s spots.

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.

82 posted on 12/30/2007 6:34:32 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

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 shouldn’t 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.


83 posted on 12/30/2007 6:35:03 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Fred Thompson is the only candidate who appeals to instinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball
I find both Huckabee and Romney extremely likeable men. Both have high moral standards personally and are unlikely to give us the Oral Office of Bill Clinton.

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

  1. He was governing a hopelessly Lieberal state and managed to nudge them to the right. Huckabee was governing a fairly conservative state and moved them to the left.

  2. He has spent 90% of his life in the private sector and shows he actually understands economics. Huckabee's populist statements leads me to wonder if he ever will.
That being said, I think Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson are better choices.
84 posted on 12/30/2007 6:35:59 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball

“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.


85 posted on 12/30/2007 6:36:50 PM PST by Checkers (First they came for the Mormons, but I said nothing because I was not Mormon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Pro socialised medicine doesn’t bother you?

Requiring people to have Private insurance is not socialized medicine, in my view. If someone doesn't have private medical insurance and has an accident, who pays for his medical care? The taxper. Now that's socialized medicine.

I don't know where you reside but here in CA, I'm required to have auto liability insurance. And that's a good thing, in my opinion.
86 posted on 12/30/2007 6:37:18 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: elizabetty
but some of us put considerable weight into competence and achievement.

Well there goes willard and the huckster.

87 posted on 12/30/2007 6:37:20 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

taxper=taxpayer


88 posted on 12/30/2007 6:37:52 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: rossusa

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.


89 posted on 12/30/2007 6:37:52 PM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator

Woodrow Wilson was a conservative Democrat(when there was such a thing) not a liberal!


90 posted on 12/30/2007 6:38:08 PM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

“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!


91 posted on 12/30/2007 6:38:15 PM PST by dmw (Aren't you glad you use common sense? Don't you wish everybody did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
I would also investigate the reports that Huckabee accepted money from embryonic stem cell researchers.

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 ...

92 posted on 12/30/2007 6:38:34 PM PST by 11th_VA (HUCKABEE - HUNTER 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball

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.


93 posted on 12/30/2007 6:38:48 PM PST by Krankor (kROGER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ontap

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.


94 posted on 12/30/2007 6:39:32 PM PST by mkjessup (Hunter-Bolton '08 !! Patriots who will settle for nothing less than *Victory* in the War on Terror!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA
...it would be like someone saying he's a member of the Chamber of Commerce

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...

95 posted on 12/30/2007 6:40:16 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Fee

I wouldn’t call Dole a rock solid conservative.


96 posted on 12/30/2007 6:40:51 PM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball
I'm not a Romney or Huckabee supporter per se (nor am I a Hunter or Thompson supporter per se, for that matter), but this strikes me as a weird and loaded question.

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."

97 posted on 12/30/2007 6:40:59 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball

“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.


98 posted on 12/30/2007 6:41:27 PM PST by Aluwid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

“Beats me.”

Because we ARE conservatives.


99 posted on 12/30/2007 6:42:05 PM PST by dmw (Aren't you glad you use common sense? Don't you wish everybody did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: RedRover
That's what really matters.

What really matters is that the rinos have 70 to 80% of the voters preferring someone else.

100 posted on 12/30/2007 6:42:59 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 461-466 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson