Posted on 12/30/2007 5:50:44 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball
“Finally, my point in asking the question was to try to get supporters of these two candidates (MH and MR) to be a little more focussed on the clear fact that these two ARE more liberal than Hunter and Thompson. Now I’m not saying that makes them bad.
As I’ve said in other threads, there was a time when people proudly described themselves as liberal republicans and moderate republicans. I believe it is profoundly clear that Huckabee and Romney fall into those categories. I think we can have a much more illuminating discussion here if the supporters of those candidates will simply say: “I think Thompson and Hunter are too far right on this and that issue,” than we have in the present environment where their supporters feel compelled to fit round moderates into square conservative holes.
Let’s have the battle: moderates versus conservatives. But let’s have it honestly.”
I’n not convinced Fred is more conservative than Mitt. But I guess it’s dishonest to say so, right?
“I understand why you’re asking. But, to me, the more pressing question why aren’t Thompson or Hunter gaining traction with Republican party voters? That’s what really matters.”
Weak campaigns, weak fundraising, personalities.
As a 7 term congressman, Hunter would have had to be truly exceptional to have any chance. There are probably a dozen like him in the House. He was one of the first to announce, so he has time to present himself, his case and raise funds.
Thompson stood a much better chance, but hasn’t managed to catch up from his unconventional late start.
On this website idealists outnumber realists and pragmatists. It does not reflect the electorate at large, because the electorate at large doesn’t nitpick every speech or past position. They weigh everything they see and hear.
McCain is now tied on Rassmussen for the national lead. Contrast that with how he is despised on FR.
“Maybe. At this point, it doesn’t look like he’s going to be the nominee, but who knows”
Who do you think will be the nominee?
“I’ll also grant you that Romney has moved a lot to the right on social issues and slightly to the right on fiscal issues.”
Kinda like Reagan who as Governor signed a very permissive abortion law, but ran for President as a pro-lifer.
“But on net, he hasn’t moved more than Fred Thompson. Romney moved to the right on abortion, so has Thompson. Romney moved to the right on immigration, so has Thompson. Okay, Thompson never supported gays in the military as far as I am aware. So Thompson might have one fewer issue where he moved. On the other hand, Romney has an actual record of concrete actions taken against illegals (denying the drivers lisences and in-state college tuition), where has Thompson has none.”
That’s the advantage of having a record as a State’s Chief Executive. There’s something there to judge.
As opposed to being one one-hundredth of a big dysfunctional debating society.
“So where do you get this idea that Thompson is somehow a solid consverative but Romney isn’t? I’m sorry, but the evidence just isn’t there.”
I’m not sure it ever was there.
LOL. That's a great way of putting it.
I'm so sick of all those references to the Senate as "the world's greatest deliberative body." What bunk! When I interned in the Senate, I remeber that hardly anyone ever showed up for the so-called "delibrations." One senator would be giving a canned speach, and there were at most two others were on the floor listening. Often, the only one listening to him would be the CSPAN camera man.
Committee hearings are no better; a Senator comes and asked a bunch of pre-packaged questions designed to make himself look important rather than elicit any information, and then he leaves.
Disfunctional debating society is right!
We’ll be finding out soon enough. My hope is that Iowans value authenticity as much as they say they do.
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
In this poll Hunter is up 3% and even with Paul and Thompson.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3481ef60-8195-46a9-af04-b87b907bcfdd
Dude, a joke is funny once, but after you post it a few times, it just gets annoying.
Worse still, if you keep posting it, people will think you actually believe that nonsense.
Wait a minute, you don't really believe that a $0.10 change in Hunter's futures price on a certain date actually means anything, do you?
I suppose that is as good an explanation as I’ve heard. Plain Jane conservatism isn’t what the media is interested in. It remains to be seen if that is what main stream America is interested in.
You nailed it.
Love the post.
No, it’s not a joke. The same analysis spit out Huckabee as the previous winner at least 2 times. Have you seen ANY OTHER analysis by a Freeper that generated an objective case that someone other than his own candidate won a debate? NO.
When the analysis spits out Huckster as the winner, and he subsequently rises in the polls, no one seems to care. But when it spits out Hunter, who is a conservative and this is supposedly a conservative site, suddenly it’s greeted with invective.
Free Republic is not what it used to be. Guys like you would have been hounded as trolls. We took it seriously that JimRob posted on the front page of the website that Free Republic isn’t associated with any political party.
Many of us were very disappointed with the republican field at the time Fred started considering a run. It seemed like the choice would be Mitt or Rudy but Fred gave us a candidate that was credibly pro life. Thats why his poll numbers were so high when he announced.
Huckabee only started to gain traction after Fred was in the race so most people on FR were not inclined to give him a serious look because they were already supporting Fred or Mitt.
There was also a huge effort from CFG to undermine Huckabee from the beginning. They released their first white paper on him shortly after he announced his exploratory committee despite him being a long shot candidate with no money and no support in the polls. CFG twisted the facts and painted Huckabee as a fiscal liberal. Many FReper were intellectually lazy and since they already had a candidate when Huckabee began his surge, they gladly used CFG and a few news articles to paint Huckabee as a phony liberal.
If Fred had not entered the race, the majority of Fred Heads would be Huckabots.
Some things to consider about Fred and Huckabee:
Abortion:
Huckabee has been constantly pro life.
Thompson is playing both sides of the fence with his federalism stance. He claims to be pro life but would be fine with states allowing abortion. Doesn't support the HLA.
Free Speech:
Fred supported McCain/Fiengold That makes him a rights grabbing nanny stater/jk
Marriage:
Fred opposes the marriage amendment
Huckabe supports it
Illegal Immigration:
Fred and Huckabee both supported "amnesty" and both converted to Tancreadoism recently.
Taxes:
Huckabee supports the Fair Tax
Thompson supports an optional flat tax
“Free Republic is not what it used to be. Guys like you would have been hounded as trolls.”
Whaaaa...?
Did you read the article? Did you notice that Huckabee had been generated as the previous winner of the debates? Where were you when that happened? And why is it that, when the conservative wins the debate, you’re in snide mode? Do you honestly think you belong on Free Republic?
From the front page of this website:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
Thanks!
Cut ‘em some slack. It’s all over Friday morning.
I see you ignored the next sentence, “We took it seriously that JimRob posted on the front page of the website that Free Republic isn’t associated with any political party.”
Do you take that seriously?
From the front page of Free Republic:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. .... We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. .... We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
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.