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
“If Fred had not entered the race, the majority of Fred Heads would be Huckabots.”
I bet their are a lot of Fredheads who consider them fighten’ words.
Tramonto
Since Dec 24, 2007
FULL DISCLOSURE
“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.”
1.The Club For Growth has a good reputation and has earned it’s credibility.
2.REH-ver-EN Michael “Billy Bob” Huckleberrybee: not-so-much.
“Do you honestly think you belong on Free Republic?”
Do you?
“Do you take that seriously?”
I do not take YOU seriously.
Yes, and the analysis is garbage. Hunter's future was trading at $0.1 and it went up to $0.2. That is, the market's assement of his probability of winning the caucus went up by one tenth of one percentage point. And from this negligible increase you conclude he won the debate!
Sorry, but that's so stupid, it's not worth any commentary.
I'll grant you one thing, though, I laughed really hard when I read your "article." That's why I thought it was a joke.
Did you notice that Huckabee had been generated as the previous winner of the debates?
Yes, so? Just because one piece of analysis is crappy doesn't mean another one is sound.
Where were you when that happened?
I saw the debate. It was pretty uninformative. I doubt any futures prices moved because of it.
And why is it that, when the conservative wins the debate, you’re in snide mode?
I'm in snide mode when I see people conducting absurd analysis and using statistics to mislead.
Do you honestly think you belong on Free Republic?
I believe in exposing shoddy analysis and misleading use of statistics. If that's not conservative, I don't know what is.
You pwned him!
That's funny, because like Mitt, Fred's also changed his position. Why do you find Fred's conversion sincere, but not Mitt's?
If you were not previously aware that Fred was pro-choice, see post #318.
Thanks!
-----
If I had to bet, I'd say McCain. Guiliani seems to be sliding. Huckabee is taking (well-deserved) hits right and left. And I know you think this isn't so, but I assure you that Romney is getting a reputation as being inauthentic and willing to say anything to anyone. Plus there IS the Mormon thing. It doesn't really matter to me, but I just know too many Christian conservatives who will not vote for a Mormon under any circumstance.
I think Fred needs a 2nd place finish in Iowa to have a shot. It doesn't look like he'll get that right now, but I'm holding out hope. Hey he's my choice, so I'm not going to throw in the towell before the votes are at least counted in Iowa.
Realistically, though, it looks like McCain will finish 3rd or 4th in Iowa and win big-time in NH. The MSM loves him, so he'll get all kinds of loving press and at that point he'll be hard to stop.
I do see another scenario where Fred comes in a close 3rd (say within a couple points of Huckabee), then goes on to SC and wins. Then...who knows?
Hey, here the most current polls:
IA - Romney 27, Huckabee 23, Thompson 14, McCain 13
NH - Romney 30, McCain 30, Huckabee 11, Guiliani 9
NV - Guiliani 25, Romney 20, Huckabee 17, Thompson 9
SC - Huckabee 28, Romney 18, McCain 16, Thompson 15
You try to make sense of it. We really might see a brokered convention this time.
Hank
Fwiw, FRED!! opposes the Human Life Amendment.
Mitt supports the Amendment.
~But I’m sure someone will pop-up to call Mitt a moderate or a liberal.~
I like Mitt because of his executive abilities and his fiscal ingenuity, but question (like many FREEPers) his recent changes on the issues.
Frankly, though, the protestations against his "conversions" are beginning to become ridiculous. The more I think about how President 40 went through changes, the more I think Romney may be the most Reaganesque of the bunch. Not that I'm looking for a reincarnation.
Whatever happens, even if Rudy or McLame gets nominated, I'm supporting the Republican. As bad as the Rs might be, they're much much much much better than Hitlery, B. Hussein Obama, or the Breck Girl.
If it was shoddy analysis, then why didn’t you take it on when I posted it earlier and showed the Huckster won? You claim, “I doubt any futures prices moved because of it” but that’s exactly what the analysis is based upon, the change in futures prices.
You have an agenda. And your agenda is against a conservative candidate, on this conservative forum.
Yeah, I know. I pointed that out in an earlier post.
But in all honesty, a candidate's position on the HLA is purely symbolic matter. The fact is, the president has no role in the drafting and ratification of constitutional amendments. Furthermore, the likilihood that such an amendment would ever even get to the stage where it would be considered by Congress within the next 8 years is so remote as to be negligible. Hence from a practical standpoint, where a president stands on it really doesn't matter one bit.
Still, Fred's opposition to only further underscores the fact that he is not the "true consistant conservative" so many believe him to be.
What, are you too much of a wuss to include me when you talk about me? Did you notice that he misread what I wrote? No, of course not. By going into the mode you’re in, you show yourself to have an even more liberal agenda.
My question is: Why?
I think that a lot of folks here at FR, disaffected by the candidates currently in the race were hoping against hope that a guy like Fred would throw his hat in. Oh, sure, Hunter was in the race at the time Fred announced, but I think Fred was looked at by people as the guy with the best chance to beat the junior Senator from New York.
Huckabee and his current "surge" is to me at least a creation of the MSM. While I'm pretty sure there are some idealistic cats out there that genuinely support the guy, I'm not about to sit here and have the MSM shove a nominee down my throat. That more than anything else is what irritates me about the Huckabee phenomenon.
Romney, on the other hand, may have a unique kind of "buzz" about him, there's a big risk for either party in nominating somebody from the Northeast (case in point: F'in Kerry in '04). Anyway, this isn't original or unique commentary, but that's how I see it.
Hope this helps.
Because I did not see it until yesterday, and as far as I can tell, no one takes that analysis serious, either.
As for my agenda, I despise the Huckster. I want to see him go down in flames as much as you do, maybe even more.
As for Hunter, well, I really don't care one way or another what he does because, frankly, it doesn't matter. His chances are negligible, as indicated by his futures contract price. So if you want to go out and campaign for Hunter and shout his names from the housetops, go knock yourself out. It won't have any impact on the election. I won't bother you, except perhaps from time to time point out that he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell.
The CFG paper on Romney makes excuses for him such as:
“While his record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature.”
and:
“Governor Romney’s record on spending must be considered within the liberal political context in which he governed. The Massachusetts Legislature was (and continues to be) dominated by Democrats more interested in raising taxes than cutting government programs.”
They don’t make the same excuses for Huckabee despite the fact that he also had to deal with a majority democrat legislature and have very little veto power.
In Arkansas, there is a balanced budget amendment which means that the budget must be balanced by LAW. Huckabee isn’t given any credit for the massive budget cuts that he made but is blamed for raising taxes to meet the shortfalls.
Another thing that CFG left out of their white papers is that per capita State and Local spending in Mass is DOUBLE State and Local spending in Arkansas.
Huckabee did support a tax hike to fix the roads in Arkansas. IMO building/fixing roads is a legitimate use of tax payer money.
Here is a link to the full version of the infamous “I want taxes” speech that CFG has used to Micheal Moore Huckabee. From 6:30 on he talks about how much they have cut from the budget and and the problem of Medicaid.
You ARE aware of what would have to happen to get the HLA passed, right? It would have to get the votes of TWO-THIRDS of both houses, then be passed by 38 state legislatrues.
Do you really think this is a viable thing to consider doing?
Hank
What about reducing the size of government?, its never going to happen. Should we just give up on that also?
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.