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
You left out immigration man!!
Bravo.
Indeed. We were trying to answer the question in this fashion.
I like Fred D. Thompson. Where the Democrats are concerned, Hillary in particular, I am a yellow-dog Republican. I would have to hold my nose to vote for anyone but Fred (is his full name Frederick Dalton Thompson), but there’s no way in blazes I would not vote against Hillary.
As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee dramatically increased state spending. During his two-term tenure, spending increased by more than 65 percent — at three times the rate of inflation.
The number of government workers increased by 20 percent, and the state’s debt services increased by nearly $1 billion. Huckabee financed his spending binge with higher taxes. Under his leadership, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, including increases in the state’s gas, sales, income, and cigarette taxes. He raised taxes on everything from groceries to nursing home beds.
Huckabee answers these complaints by pointing out that he “cut taxes 94 times” while governor. True. But most of those tax cuts were tiny, like exempting residential lawn care from the sales tax. Some cuts reduced overall state revenues by as little as $15,000. On net, Huckabee increased state taxes by more than $500 million. In fact, Huckabee increased taxes in the state by more than Bill Clinton did.
On its annual governor’s report card, Cato gave Huckabee an “F” for fiscal policy during his final term, and an overall two-term grade of “D.” Only four governors had worse scores, and 15 Democratic governors got higher grades, including well-known liberals like Ted Kulongoski of Oregon, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.
But Huckabee doesn’t just embrace big government in the form of big taxes. He truly appears to believe that if something is a good idea it should be a federal government program.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938131/posts
If it hasn't been stabs in the back from Mclame it's bend over, what in the hell do you know.
Oh... if that's what you meant, then my mistake. Ok.
Of course, I'm not sure that's "what really matters", then. The obvious explanation for this is that a lot of different "ok" candidates remain in the field, splitting up the votes. But over time front-runners will emerge, candidates will drop out, and someone will emerge as the majority choice. It's not like so-and-so's failure to climb above 30% means that 70% don't like him and will never support him. It just means that, at this stage, there are many choices. In the end, this doesn't mean very much.
It is like what the polls say about the hildabeast, no matter what 46% of the voters oppose her and say they would never vote for her.
But that's just it; it is not like that Hillary poll result (which I take great comfort in :) at all. It's not the case that the 70+% who don't prefer so-and-so as their first (R) choice are saying "I would never vote for so-and-so". For example, I guess I have a first choice for (R) nominee in my head at the moment. However, pretty much whoever emerges as the nominee, even if it's not my first choice, will get my vote in the general election against Hillary. So the fact that my first choice right now is not, say, Mitt Romney doesn't mean anything because I'm not saying Mitt Romney can never ever get my vote. Just that there are guys in the race whom I prefer right now. Big big difference.
There are a lot of people on this site (75%)who understand conservatism. It's meaning, origin and how the precepts translate into freedoms. I've garnered from many of the answers of the (other 25%) that viability or single issues are paramount. Big picture v. small picture. I support Fred because I see him truly as a small government conservative whereas he recognizes the limitations ensconced in the Constitution. A true federalist. I don't want a large government to forward my agenda, just as I don't want the oppositions agenda forwarded by the government. I want to forward my agenda. As it should be.
I'm afraid that many Repubs just want power for themselves as opposed to reducing the power of the federal government. Conservatives fall in line with this whereas repubs do not. Hence a 75/25 split.
Republicans have been clamoring for another Conservative. Well, we have two. It's a shame that there is so much opposition amongst the rank and file.
Matt
That’s about as koolaid of a post as one could make.
TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO WHERE HUCKABEE SAID ABOUT IN-STATE TUITION FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS:
I’m also going to ask that we open financial aid for any student graduating from a high school in Arkansas. There’s something terribly unjust about a kid whose family came here looking for opportunity and that kid maybe has come, at the age of four, as happened in a school in El Dorado. And that student of hispanic descent, spent his entire career as a student in Arkansas public schools, from the age of four. Graduated from high school, one of the top kids in his class, but when he applied for financial aid, he wasn’t eligible for the various scholarships or grants because of his status — a status that he had no decision in and no control over.
Do we want to change the future for those kids? Then let’s give them the opportunity. Let’s not say that our doors are open but our opportunities are closed. Let’s open both our doors and our opportunities and create a whole new generation of kids who have the opportunity to be prosperous and to bring to their families a hope that they came here for.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1930498/posts
I like Thompson’s positions on the issues more than Romney’s and trust that he is genuinely more conservative. However, I have real doubts about Thompson’s ability to do anyting about it.
Thompson’s never run anything. And he is not running a strong campaign.
Romney’s been an effective manager and governor whether you agree with (or trust the sincerity of) his positions.
I live in Florida. By the time I vote, I hope I will be voting for Thompson because he is still viable and not in Duncan Hunter like numbers. However, if I had to bet, I would bet that I will be voting for Romney to prevent Rudy or McCain from becoming our nominee.
Huckabee’s surge has come because of his perceived sincerity. People wish Romney seemed more sincere. Romney has obviously created the sincerity problem through pandering. However, he is obviously extremely serious about winning and that might just be enough.
Can you give an example of something Romney did in office that was at odds with what he campaigned on?
Sure.
Gun grabbing.
He had the chance to sunset the AWB law but instead extended it.
Uh... well, you're right that he flip-flopped on the Choice issue... except, his ACTIONS were more suppportive of the Pro-Life side than his statements when campaigning.
Mitt has been, and remains opposed to sanctuary cities.. In his role as Govenor, city decisions were not his to make.
I'm no expert on "Romney-Care".. but, from what I know, it's a LONG way from Socialized medicine. It's just Mandatory insurance... Not, government provided health care.
“If my friends were supporting the Huckster, Rudy-Tooty, or McInsane, I would give some serious thought to re-evaluating who my friends really are.”
You really would shed friends because they vote differently from you?
“That’s about as koolaid of a post as one could make.”
If you’re talking about the Fred post, then nah, there were some posts about Romney being just so wonderful it was like sucking kool-aid from a fireman’s hose. lol
Mom: ‘Carol Sue Would Be Alive Today’ If Not for Huckabee
A Missouri mother says she will do “whatever it takes” to stop former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee from becoming president, because he freed the man who went on to rape and murder her daughter, Carol Sue Shields (pictured).
“I can’t imagine anybody wanting somebody like that running the country,” Lois Davidson of Adrian, Mo., told the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
Wayne Dumond was initially sentenced to life plus 25 years for raping a 17-year-old Arkansas high school cheerleader. In 1999, a parole board voted to free Dumond, after then-Gov. Mike Huckabee announced his desire to see him released. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934769/posts
But some people whose judgment I have *had* a high regard for are definitely for Huckabee—and either they are wrong or I am--and Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly seem to agree with me so I'm in pretty good company.
Among those I disagree with on their choice of candidates are Jim Gilchrist, Janet Folger and Rick Scarborough.
One fact is that if indeed Rev. Huckabee were a better candidate than meets the eye, mudslinging by anti-Christian types would seek to torpedo his campaign, at least eventually if not in the primary. At the deepest level, it’s indeed spiritual warfare.
But some of the Huckabee baggage—particularly as regards national sovereignty and related corruption (Tyson, embassy, etc.) issues—is unquestionably valid.
As regards Romney, his true religion has been not Mormon but Mammon--wealth and power, including some unconscionable non-Pro-Life matters. That and the Nanny State healthcare in MA are Mitt Albatrosses in my view.
RE: Fred Thompson, it sounds like Fred is not a real friend of the Second Amendment--and he could be quite the Globalist.
Personally, I still favor Hunter.
Subject: Why is Huckabee suddenly getting press - CRF?
The Danger of the CFR - Huckabee ‘surge’
Many are asking the question, why is Huckabee suddenly getting press
when he has only raised $1M this quarter, and Ron Paul has raised $9M
in the same time frame?.
This so-called ‘surge’ for Huckabee in Iowa, has been contrived. Here
is my evidence. It also tells how the Rockefellers and their ‘groups’
are who controls who can and cannot be president..
First, Huck’s ‘money bomb’ fails:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Mike_Huckabee_s_Money_Bomb_HUGE_FAI...
Carl Cameron on Fox news claimed that Huckabee is ‘surging’ and
getting tons of media attention. But according to this article, Huck
is no conservative:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312356,00.html
In the above article it says:
“Mike Huckabee? As governor, he never saw a tax increase he didn’t
love. He presided over a massive increase in state spending, including
an expansion of Medicaid, and approved increases in the sales, income,
and cigarette taxes. On its annual governor’s report card, Cato gave
him an “F” for fiscal policy. Most Democratic governors received
higher grades.”
Hmm, I wonder who just got ‘touched’ by the CFR?
I do some research and I find out that CFR member Michael Gerson
writes about him on November 9th, just after he suddenly started
getting this attention:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14772/huckabee_difference.html?breadcr...
And Huck himself writes for the CFR:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14335/mike_huckabees_speech_on_foreign...
Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks this, as this article notes
that he spoke to the CFR in September and has suddenly come into favor
with them and the media, which they control via their groups:
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=146787
The article is very comprehensive so be sure to read the entire piece.
It talks about how Reagan was the only one they ever ‘allowed’ to be
president but it was provided he chose a CFR member and one of the
‘club’ (Bush 41) for his Veep.
Carter and Clinton were unknown ‘nobodies’ until courted by the CFR...
and promoted in the media.
NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNTIL AND UNLESS WE GET RID OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE, THE IRS, and these ROCKEFELLER CONTROLLED GROUPS (CFR,
Trilats, Bilderberger, etc) It’s a huge cabal of elites... and they are
who run the show, not us. You can always tell which candidate is the
true man of honor, not controlled by anyone, the non-CFR member; and
often the one who is the most reviled. He is the one who deserves your
vote, not people like Huckabee who called the ‘Club for Growth’ the
‘Club for Greed’:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/huckabee_the_false_...
Article:
Presidential candidates have ties to groups advocating a North
American Union
Hugo Mann
Published 11/01/2007 - 3:12 p.m. EST
Several presidential candidates have ties to groups that appear to
advocate replacing the U.S. government with a North American Union and
furthering the long term goal of a World Government.
WorldNetDaily reports that “Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani,
Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson,
Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are all members or have toes
to the Council on Foreign Relations the Bilderberg Group or the The
Trilateral Commission.
WND also reports that Mike Huckabee is not a member of the CFR but
that he spoke to the group in September and has since become a top-
tier candidate in the media’s eyes.
To our knowledge, Republicans Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan
Hunter have no ties to Globalist groups and have voiced opposition to
a North American union.
Last month former Mexican President Vincente Fox said that he
supported massive immigration into the U.S. for the long term goal of
a North American Union. Fox also said that he and President Bush were
working on a regional currency but got derailed.
As previously reported the Council on Foreign Relations has a proposed
plan that in short proposes to replace all three branches of the U.S.
government as follows:
North American Advisory Council
Consisting of 15 members, five from each nation, that will hold
biannual summits designed to set the agendas for the three presidents
and be a voice for the North American Union. (It should be noted that
the U.S. Congress is supposed to set the agenda for the president.)
Merging Parliamentary groups
replace the U.S. Congress by merging the parliamentary systems of each
nation and creating a North American parliament.
A North American Court
the proposed North American Court will replace the U.S. Supreme Court
as the highest court in the land.
Continental Perimeter
Eliminating the national boundaries between Mexico, Canada, and the
United States by creating a North American Customs and Immigration
force along with an integrated North American Department of Homeland
Security (North American Police Force)
Common External Tariff (CEF)
The proposed North American tariff will redistribute wealth to Mexico
and strengthen the North American government.
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America SPP was created
in 1995 by the executive branch of government. While it claims that
national sovereignty is not at risk with a North American Union the
SPP stretches its credibility with the claim and doesn’t seem to have
a legal justification to its existence.
The U.S. Constitution has provisions for allowing new states into the
Union. The proposed North American Union appears illegal and
unconstitutional.
According to WorldNetDaily and other sources Ronald Reagan was the
only candidate in modern history to get elected that did not have ties
to and was not a CFR member. His last minute convention choice for VP,
George Bush, was a member.
Likewise Ron PAul is the only candidate not connected with the CFR...
Interesting!
—
STOP SPP is a non-partisan group of citizens concerned over ...
the creation of the NORTH AMERICAN UNION.
This will dismantle USA as we know it today.
Website: STOPSPP.ORG
Not all democrats were liberals then. Even now there are republicans running who are more liberal than some democrats were back then. Rudy, Romney, Huckabee are three I would put in that category. Some people on this board believe they are conservatives. And yet you say that the more conservative Reagan was a liberal.
Even back in his earliest days, Ronald Reagan was more conservative than all three of those current candidates. He may have been even more conservative than McInsane. He did become even more conservative as time went on and the democratic party became liberal which is why he could no longer remain a democrat. And it is also why some people can try to paint Reagan as a liberal, just because he was a democrat. There are conservative democrats even today, although they are much more rare than they used to be.
Quite the opposite- if we don't find a candidate that all Conservatives will support, the Republicans will lose. Republicans will lose without the full support of the base.
= = =
JOYA’S COMMENTS:
Sounds warm and fuzzy nice the way he describes it. He says, ‘Do we want to change fhe future for those kids? Then let’s give them the opportunity. Let’s not say that our doors are open but our opportunities are closed. Let’s open both our doors and our opportunities and create a whole new generation of kids who have the opportunity to be prosperous and to bring to their families a hope that they came here for.’
Do I want to change the future for those kids? Not at the price of the sovereignty of the United States.
As someone [SoCalPol] said a couple days ago, if the Mexicans want to take over a government and change their status, let them take over THEIR OWN GOV’T IN MEXICO and change their status THERE.
Steps to reverse this mess are, at the very least,
BUILD THE WALL
NO AMNESTY
NO CITIZENSHIP FOR “ANCHOR” BABIES
VOTE EVERY ANTI-AMERICAN TRAITOR POLITICIAN OUT OF OFFICE
NO BENEFITS TO ILLEGALS EXCEPT A FREE RIDE BACK TO WHEREVER THEY’RE FROM.
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.