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
“The man has said he’s changed. You don’t believe he has. That’s what this is about, right?”
You win the prize! For me, yes, that’s exactly what it is. Why should I believe what Mitt says now and not his track record as governor, or what he’s said in the past for that matter? Someone here on FR described Mitt as a chameleon. That describes him to a T. That’s why so many people call him Slick Mitt. He’s no different than Slick Willie. Why should we conservatives settle for someone like Mitt? For the sole reason that he’s the only one that can win the republican nomination or beat Hillary? Isn’t that what many here were saying about Rooty not too long ago? Who’s next?
-----
Taxes - A-
Spending - D
Defense/National Security - B+
Judges - A
Borders - F
Fighting Enviroloons - B- (much better until this month)
Misc. (stem cells, guns, homosexual agenda) - A-
Let's see, using a 4 point scale, that's : (3.75+ 1 + 3.5 + 4 + 0 + 2.75 + 3.75) / 7
That's (18.75/7), or 2.678. I guess that makes it a B-/C+ overall.
How about you?
Hank
By the way, do you know George W. Bush was persona non grata on Free Republic this time 1999? He had very few supporters here.
I’d say Mitt doesn’t hide it at all.
He’s not much better than that now.
Hmmmm I really don't like Huckabee at all.
I think some folks are focused on an ideologically “pure” candidate and that anyone who fails to meet their standard is a “liberal” or “rino.”
I believe that Mitt is a good man, an experienced manager, and a conservative.
As a former MA resident, I believe he can win over the crucial swing middle.
I was living in Massachusetts at the time he was governor (I was in grad school), and I think his record as governor was a conservative one.
Was it totally consistent? No, but that's the reality of politics. It's simply not possible to be a totally consistent anything (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc) and still get elected to a major office. All politicians flip-flip, and all pander. Romney's problem is that he doesn't hide it as well as some others.
There's a name for a politician who never flip-flops and never panders: loser.
But the fact of the matter is, Romney's record is just as conservative as Thompson's or any viable candidate's (and Thompson isn't a viable candidate, BTW).
The undeniable fact is that Thompson used to be pro-choice and he used to be pro-amnesty. He is no longer. That makes him as big a filp-flopper, if not a bigger one, than Romney.
BTW, I am calm, but I don't take kindly to someone accusing me of lacking in ethics. I appreciate your olive branch, and I wouldn't mind having dinner with you at Anthony's or or Ivar's (personally, I'd prefer a place like Ray's Boathouse), but I would also appreciate an apology.
I guess you are right...since he has been on opposite sides of several issues depending on what office he was campaigning for.
In 1994 when running for the Senate he said he was for gays openly serving in the military, the Brady Bill and an Assault Weapons Ban. When campaigning for Governor he said he supported a woman's right to chose on abortion.
Flash to 2007. Romney is now a card carrying member of the NRA. Of course the ink is still wet on his card since he joined in August. He says since we are in the midst of a conflict that he doesn't want to change the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I guess we still don't know where he stands on that. Last, he is now pro-life.
Now I don't know about you, but my personal position on those three issues have always been on side and if anything have grown stronger between 1994 and now.
For me Romney's flexibility on policy positions has been a great disappointment. I think that his previous positions and switching to run for president will be his undoing. The guy is obviously very talented and has been extremely successful in just about everything he's touched. I also like that he seems to have a strong bond with his family.
Maybe if he had run for governor of Utah instead of Massachusetts things would have been different.
That was a question to post 2
>>>but he has the Mojo.
Huckabee practices voodoo?
Mojo is another word for voodoo. 11th VA didn’t clarify if he meant it literally.
If that's true, than Freepers' collective judgment has just risen in my estimation.
Yeah, that's his main problem. He's really got to work on that skill, i.e. pandering without making it obvious. Unfortunately, it's a necessity in today's political environment.
Thompson is able to hide his abortion flip-flop because back when he was running for Senate the first time, he was very equivocal and subtle in the way he described his position.
If you take the time to read and/or listen to his statements, it becomes clear he was pro-choice, but his lack of straighforward language makes it difficult for his opponents to come up with a video soundbite the way they did with Romney.
In contrast, Romney just came out and said it openly. That was a big mistake.
This post should be yanked...what a big waste of cyberspace.
-----
You just made that up out of whole cloth!
Evidence, please?
Hank
When asked my preference in these polls, I have typically voted for Duncan Hunter, but my support for Mr. Hunter doesn't mean that I don't see Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney as conservatives. I realize that the more zealous supporters of some of these candidates, particularly Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter supporters, see all other candidates and their supporters as enemies who cannot possibly have intelligent opinions or loyalty to our country. These supporters are doing Free Republic, the Republican Party, and our country a disservice. Seeing Duncan Hunter as the best conservative in the race doesn't mean that I don't see other candidates as being reasonably conservative. Your question seems to indicate a black-and-white view where those who support Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter must automatically see other candidates as liberals. In the past, I've been a Duncan Hunter supporter who could see good things in several candidates.
I'm also bothered by the way people have used many of these Free Republic polls. When a poll asks which candidate did himself the most good in a debate, we should honestly answer about which candidate performed the best and not just turn the poll into a popularity contest. I'm not supporting Fred Thompson, but in the poll asking who won the last debate, I voted for him because I thought his hand-raising response helped him very much. In other polls, I've voted that Mike Huckabee did himself the most good because he performed well, but I don't support Mike Huckabee.
In all likelihood, I'll end up voting for Mitt Romney, and I voted for him in the most recent FReeper poll. I like most of Duncan Hunter's positions on the issues better than those of any other candidate, but he doesn't have executive experience and hasn't gained any traction. Knowing that he's not likely to gain traction, I have to look at other possibilities.
I won't list again all of the things that Fred Thompson has done that I don't like. I've given that list on other threads, and I've argued with the Fredheads about those points. As I've tried to say many times, I don't see Fred Thompson as a liberal. I see him as a moderate conservative who has generally been good on the issues because he was elected from a conservative state. I see Mitt Romney as another moderate conservative who has had to avoid taking strongly conservative stands because he has campaigned and governed in a very liberal state. I see them as being practically equal in terms of their degree of conservatism. I see Mitt Romney as being someone who will be far superior in terms of effectiveness.
In terms of why some of you have taken these positions, I don't have an absolute answer. I believe that many people are projecting their own views on Fred Thompson as if he is the embodiment of those views. I voted for Fred Thompson in 1996 and lived in Tennessee when he voted not guilty on one count of the impeachment. I remember a radio talk show host mentioning that people assume that Fred Thompson is conservative because he's very masculine. We tend to associate conservatism with masculinity, but the fact is that some very masculine men take some very liberal positions.
The whole aura of masculinity is a strange thing. We all like to think of Ronald Reagan as being more masculine that his vice-president, G.H.W. Bush. However, G.H.W. Bush had lived the more masculine life. I'm not trying to disparage President Reagan's service to the country making training films in WWII, but making training films in Los Angeles is not nearly as masculine as piloting torpedo bombers. Fred Thompson has the aura, but nothing in his life has been any more masculine than the things in the lives of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. None of these things makes one candidate more conservative than another.
In terms of "why?" I'm sure that there are many reasons. One may be that having selected a candidate, some people are less concerned about what is right for the country than about ensuring that their candidate wins. The "horse race" aspect of the campaign has become more important than the final goal, so these people demonize other candidates in a misguided effort to help their own candidate. Another possibility is that they are caught in the aura of masculinity or some other feeling that makes them blind to your own candidates' faults and other candidates' virtues. A third possibility is just that honest people can have honest disagreements on how to interpret someone's record. I largely grade Mitt Romney "on the curve" because he came from Massachusetts where a hard-core conservative would have no chance of winning an election or governing effectively. I grade Fred Thompson harder because he came from a conservative state where he would have been supported for being a "red-meat conservative," but he never acted that way in the Senate.
Even if all of our differences are just the honest differences of honorable people, the fact that several thousand of the active FReepers don't see the candidates as I do does not change my mind. Why you are wrong is irrelevant. I've been in many situations in life where I was right but in a tiny minority. The fact that I was in the minority didn't make me any less right. In these situations, I try to stand for what's right and do what I can to change people's minds. Sometimes I win. Sometimes I lose.
Bill
I’d say you need to work on your spin it’s not getting much traction. You can paint Romney with that conservative brush all you want but he’s the only candidate that admittedly was pro choice and switched.Fred has a 100% voting record on abortion. By the way Mitt said that republicans not supporting the presidents amnesty bill was a big mistake.
I'm afraid not:
http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=22003
Scroll down to abortion.
In a 1994 interview with the Republican Liberty Caucus, he said the following:
Murphey [the interviewer]: Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?
Thompson: Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the women. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.
Source: http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/04/fred-thompson-pro-choice-republican.html
And BTW, can you please give me a source where Mitt said voting down amnesty was a mistake? I don't recall ever reading that.
FYI, Fred flip-flopped on amnesty, too.
I think part of it is psychological. FR is a special place which prides itself on being more informed and more dedicated than the average Joe Republican. FR does not label itself a Republican site. Part of the luster of being in FR circle is dulled if one is supporting who Joe Republican is supporting, instead of a ‘boutique candidate’.
Another way to explain it is that it’s similar to how some music lovers act - when a band becomes too popular, the music lover stops liking them and goes on to search for a more obscure band.
But most will come around to eventually support whoever the Republican nominee is...in a vote against the greater evil.
IMO, Romney has the most conservative platform all around and the greatest amount of relevant experience, so it is surprising he doesn’t have more support around here. There is a lot of group-think, stereotyping, and Animal Farm re-writing of history that goes on and then it becomes assumed fact. The few rational ones left disproving the claim of a ‘liberal Romney’ are overrun by the power of numbers and the kind of frat-boy club that has grown around some of the other candidates. It’s pointless to argue with highly emotionally-charged cheerleaders.
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.