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
Where do you get the 70-80% number from??
Do you think FR is a microcosm of the voters of America?
There is a small vocal group, promoting hardcore unadulterated conservatism and will willingly cut off their nose to spite their face, for the chance to say they didn’t yield a conservative inch, general election be damned.
Moving in the right direction isn’t good enough, which is true for losers.
“I disagree. George HW Bush ran as the pro-choice candidate in 1980. When he was President he was solidly pro-life, including giving us Clarence Thomas. Souter was a snooker job by Warren Rudman and that fool Sununu. Also, while I have been solidly conservative in the Reagan mode, I’m sure I could find some disagreement with some of my positions 10 years ago.”
Your post is a breath of fresh air.
Btw, when Reagan was Governor of Cal, he signed into law one of the most permissive abortion laws in the country.
I agree with you. I wish others could see that Flip Romney, Hunter, and Thompson have no chance of winning. So that leaves us with the choice between the winnable candidates for the general election; McCain, Giuliani, Paul, and Huckabee. Of those four (with Paul having no chance with our party due to the party's centrist move from libertarianism since Bush took office), I pick Huckabee.
As to Thompson, I really don't get it. His current positions are no more conservative than Romney, and he's just as big a "flip-flopper." He used to be pro-choice, just like Romney. He also came out explicitly in favor of amnesty at as recently as a year ago.
Two years ago Romney hedged himself on immigration, calling some amnesty proposals "reasonable" but left himself an out that he hadn't yet forumlated a position on the issue yet. As time went on, and these proposals were turned into legislation, he came out against them. He also has a strong record as governor: he vetoed bills to give illegals divers' lisences and in state tuition in the UMASS system. In short, his record on immigration is far better than Thompson's.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against Thompson. I wouldn't mind him as the nominee, but the fact is 1) he's no more conservative than Romney, 2)he has little to no track record as a conservative leader and 3) he's just not viable. I'm sorry, but no candidate with a futures contract trading in the single digits this late in the game is viable.
Why do I support Romney? Well, many reasons. Yes, he has flaws, but I like him, warts and all.
I was living in Massachusetts at the time the courts imposed state sanctioning of sodomy; I was at the demonstrations at Beacon Hill against gay marriage, and Romney was with us all the way. No one in the crowd of demonstrators doubted it, nor was their reason, because we could see him fighting against gay marraige with everything he had. Actions speak louder than words.
In the end, what sold me on Romney was 1)strong record of fiscally conservative governing, and yes, that includes fee increases; making users for government services pay for them rather than taxpayers is a conservative position. And yes, I regard his healthcare plan a conservative one. 2) Strong record of fighting for traditional marraige. 3) Strong record of executive competence and 4) proven ability to appeal to moderates and independents with conservative policy ideas (like his healthcare plan), giving him an ability to compete in the general election without selling out conservative principles.
Yeah, he's a recent convert to the pro-life cause, but as a Catholic, I welcome converts, and I buy his conversion story. I actually know some people who became pro-life for the same reason he did , i.e. they realized that the pro-choice position would justify horrific practices like embryo farming.
In the end, I think that Freepers haven't been sold on Romney because they are looking for perfection, and Romney isn't perfect. Lots have been sold on Thompson because Thompson has done a better job of hiding his flaws.
“So you’ve got no problem with the Massechussets manditory health care and his indirect funding of abortion clinics or you’re just holding your nose?”
Do you have any ideas on how to deal with health care? If so, please share...
“You obviously see Romney as a conservative, some of us don’t.”
Based on what?
Personally, I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument that anyone running is a reliable conservative... Fred Thompson was infamously moderate in his time in the Senate, so I question the entire premise of your question.
Anyway, I’m going to vote for whoever can beat Rudy. Whether that person is Thompson, Huckabee, Romney or McCain.
FReeper Plutarch made a VERY strong case recently that Huckabee’s weight loss nearly identically resembles that of someone who has had bariatric surgery (stomach stapling) though Huckabee has written a book purporting that he lost all that weight through diet and exercise alone.
Not that there’s anything wrong, per se, with bariatric surgery, but writing a book fraudulently claiming to have achieved enormous weight loss thru good ole fashioned diet and exercise when actually the weight loss was first and foremost the effect of surgical intervention is unethical and dishonest, and it shows VERY POOR JUDGMENT. See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1937730/posts
Try it, you’ll like it. ;)
Cheers,
Dude, is that a joke?
If Romney was a Lutheran that would be 95%
Other than Hunter, this is a horrible group of candidates.
Achievement and competence are attractive, all right - but competence is useless or worse if it is wrongly directed. Think, Herbert Hoover. For all of FDR's bloviating about the evils of Herbert Hoover, the reality was that Hoover had done the same things that FDR did - and more of it than FDR could have done, had he been POTUS at the time of the Hoover Administration.If Hoover had been less competent, the country might have been better off.
“Why do you think 70 to 80 pecent of FR supports Thompson or Hunter?”
Wouldn’t that question be better addressed to those Thompson/Hunter supporters? We’re not mind readers.
“There is a small vocal group, promoting hardcore unadulterated conservatism and will willingly cut off their nose to spite their face, for the chance to say they didn’t yield a conservative inch, general election be damned.”
I’m not particularly hardcore (despite what my family thinks), but wouldn’t what you’re describing be called having principles and standing by them?
Sadly, I think you’re right. I’ll vote for him in a general, and have to drag my hubby along too, but we’ll be doing it with disgust.
He never got around to condemning sanctuary cities when he had the governors pulpit to speak out. He doesn’t seem to have the same fire for mandatory insurance as when he was governor. In short I see a politician willing to go with the flow.
Although I’ll take his word that he genuinely had a change of heart about the abortion thing the timing is still suspect. The fact is that when he had the opportunity and could have advanced the conservative agenda with the power of his office he did not.
“The claim that a candidate must have prior “executive experience” is not accurate. I say Thompson would lead better than Romney. Take a look at Fred’s leadership when he answers the moderator in the “No Hand Shows” video from his website. Watch how Romney scrambles to fall in line with Thompson. Body language doesn’t lie—Romney clearly sees Thompson as the alpha:
http://www.fred08.com/FredCast/FredCastSummary.aspx#";
Can you name for me the last time a Senator was elected President? Can you name more than one?
I don’t hate Mitt. I actually like the guy. I just don’t trust him. Does he really stand for what he says (nowadays) or is it just expedient to get elected?
My first thought after listening to Mitt was to look for the string in his back “Pull my string and I’ll tell you what you want to hear.” I still like the guy, but the impression stuck.
See post #196.
“The case for Mitt is such an easy one that all you Fredheads out there will eventually figure it out when you wake up from your Fredstumpspeech-induced slumber.
Those who know and have worked with Romney admire him and will do almost anything for him. He is a winner. He is as smart and accomplished as they come. He brings smart people together and leads them to positive solutions. What he did in Salt Lake City was amazing. Look at those who support him...people like Jim DeMint, Jim Talent, Pete Hoekstra, and countless others.
Mitt can and will win the nomination and, ultimately, the Presidency.
All of this Mitt bashing and anger should be redirected to the Republican who truly deserves it....John McCain (great American, lowsy Republican). Amnesty, gang of 14, McCain-Feingold.
Wakeup Fredheads...a great campaign with a great candidate is about to truly get underway...
Go Mitt!”
Great post!
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.