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
Because I did not see it until yesterday, and as far as I can tell, no one takes that analysis serious, either.
***Then go back to those official debate discussion threads and look at the analysis. Has anyone else posted an objective analysis that spit out someone other than their own candidate as the winner of a debate? NO. So my analysis stands in a unique place. The observation that no one else takes it seriously is simply the logical fallacy of appealing to the gallery. You abdicated your responsibility at that time so if you want to come into the middle of things, you’ll need to come up to speed. Like the lexicon says, RTFAB4UP.
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.
***Then read up and learn about how this form of analysis can help knock him down.
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.
***Just a few weeks before his rise, Huckabee’s futures prices were very low as well.
So if you want to go out and campaign for Hunter and shout his names from the housetops, go knock yourself out.
***Thanks, I’ll do just that.
It won’t have any impact on the election.
***Your crystal ball should come in real handy for this election, since it’s a wide open race.
I won’t bother you, except perhaps from time to time point out that he hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell.
***Why? Hunter is a conservative candidate, and this is a conservative forum. Did you read JimRob’s statement? What is it that drives you to point out such things about a conservative candidate on a conservative forum? That’s classic trolling behavior.
I believe Romney in his heart has always been a faith-based conservative, and said many of those pandering comments to get elected in Mass.
In reality, he governed from the right to moderate space on the political scale.
I also believe he recognizes that if he wins, his power and authority will have come from the hard right on the Republican Party — and thus will be beholden to conservatives a lot more than people think.
And I also think he has the smarts, the telegenic qualities essential to being elected in 2007 media-driven America. Not to mention his fabulous looking family, financial backing, and already great support from Michelle Malkin, Beck, Paul Weyrich, the American Conservative Union, Bob Jones III, the list goes on and on.
He might have said some pandering things on social issues in the past, but I don’t think he THINKS like a liberal. That’s why I like him.
“Can you name for me the last time a Senator was elected President? Can you name more than one?”
This argument is meaningless. Candidates are elected for many reasons. Nobody casts a vote thinking “wait a minute, first let me make sure I’m not voting for a senator.”
To know whether the senator factor is a relevant influence statistically, you would have to have a statistically relevant number of elections and you would have to control for multiple factors. Your argument just does not work. It’s like saying the taller candidate wins. Turned out wrong in 2000 and 2004. Stupid assertions.
“People who have served as Legislators normally don’t make as good chief executives as governors.”
This is another fake argument. The next time someone says to you that a president must have executive experience, tell them this:
Give me example of something that could go wrong for a president who used to be a senator.
The argument is all hot air.
“But he is committed to building a fence and cracking down on illegals.”
How can you say Huckabee is committed to this when the only reason he changed from supporting amnesty is because he wanted to be elected president?
To run as a “conservative Christian” candidate when you are as dishonest as Bill Clinton himself is not good.
Either Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson, or Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter, I would be happy with either of the two.
Our biggest difference comes in your statement that "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." While Duncan Hunter is farther to the right on abortion than I am and this position would likely hurt him if anyone paid attention, my concerns about him have nothing to do with this issue. My concerns about Mr. Hunter are entirely related to his lack of executive experience. I don't doubt that Mr. Hunter would try to have a much more conservative administration than Mitt Romney would. In the case of Fred Thompson, I disagree with the assertion that he'd try to have an administration that was any more conservative than Mitt Romney would. If he wouldn't fight for conservatives on some of these issues as a senator from a conservative state, I can't see him fighting for the conservative positions as president. In terms of degree of conservatism, I see no difference between Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. The only difference that I see is in effectiveness, and Mr. Romney has a huge advantage in that area.
I will contrast how I see Mr. Romney with how I see Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. Rudy Giuliani took some very extreme positions as mayor. I heard him say on national TV that he doesn't believe in the private ownership of handguns. He's flipped on that issue for the presidential campaign, but that position is an extreme liberal position on guns. On the other hand, Mitt Romney's approach as he campaigned for governor of Massachusetts was that he wasn't going to press for more gun laws but wasn't going to repeal the ones already passed. I'm not excited about that position, but that's where anyone would have to stand to be elected in Massachusetts. Rudy Giuliani took some extreme positions in support of abortion and carried those positions through his time as mayor. Mitt Romney largely avoided the issue in his campaigns and was pro-abortion because he'd been brought up in a home where legalized abortion was touted as a way to prevent women from dying in botched, illegal abortions. Again, that position is nothing to celebrate, but Massachusetts wouldn't have elected a true, anti-abortion governor. He changed in office, and did what little he could to stop abortions. Rudy Giuliani is a guy who willingly and enthusiastically took some extreme liberal positions and advocated those positions in and out of office. Mitt Romney is a guy who wanted to serve his country and his state by applying his business skills in public office. He took the positions that were necessary in his state, and tried to take small steps to minimize the damage of the legislature's liberal actions.
John McCain's actions have not been as extreme as Rudy Giuliani's, but he has also back-stabbed the conservative movement many times. His advocacy of campaign finance reform is a big problem. (Fred Thompson's help on that one is also a problem for Mr. Thompson.) His "gang of 14" activities were a slap in the face for all of those who worked so hard in 2004 to elect a Republican senate that might confirm good judges. He likes to play the trust and integrity card, but his posturing is hypocritical.
I find Mike Huckabee's positions on illegal immigration to be completely wrong. His gaffes on foreign policy also bother me. I still have a problem with his debate position that we "broke" Iraq and must fix it. Iraq was already broken, and our job was to break Saddam Hussein's power. Arkansas may be socially conservative but fiscally more liberal to moderate. I suspect that his fiscal record is not as bad as some of his critics claim but worse than his supporters admit. I don't necessarily have a problem with the number of pardons that he issued. Arkansas was under the Clintons for a long time, and many parts of the judiciary likely became very corrupted. If a state's judicial system becomes completely corrupted, I can see the state having a thousand or so prisoners who were unjustly convicted. I'll vote for Mike Huckabee if I must, but I'm glad to see his candidacy imploding. Whether he is sufficiently conservative is not the issue. I believe that his administration would end up being about as conservative as a Fred Thompson administration. The issue is that he's made some disturbing mistakes and holds some disturbing positions.
The issue is not trying to fit a round moderate into a square conservative hole. With the possible exception of Duncan Hunter, all of our candidates are somewhat rounded into having some kind of moderate history. The issue is whether the candidates would really be effective.
Here's another way to look at the issue. I believe Ed Koch was the one who said that if you agree with him 80%, then you should vote for him because no two people will agree 100%. Let's say that you agree with one candidate on 80% of the issues and agree with another candidate on 75% of the issues. However, you have reason to believe that the first candidate will only be about half effective while the second candidate will be two-thirds effective. Under this scenario, the first candidate will accomplish about 40% of your agenda while the second candidate accomplishes 50% of your agenda. I'd rather have the guy who will accomplish 50% of my agenda. I don't even see a 5% difference between Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney in terms of their agreeing with me on the issues, and I see Mitt Romney as someone who will be much more effective in accomplishing things.
To me, the battle is not moderates versus conservatives. Either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson could be conservative enough as president. Mike Huckabee would be conservative enough if he didn't hold some naive views of the world. On paper, most of John McCain's record is conservative, but he still favors the praise of reporters over accurately representing the conservative Republicans who put him in office. Rudy Giuliani has made some "road to Des Moines" flips, but his basic outlook is liberal authoritarian. Duncan Hunter has the most conservative record and positions in this race, but he's not likely to become a viable candidate. Fred Thompson would be a conservative president, but so would Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney would be a more effective conservative president.
Bill
I won’t miss the commercials, otherwise I don’t mind.
Not really. I was just trying to be polite.
"Here was a Caesar. When comes such another?" - Wm. Shakespeare
Yes, if he does drop out he'll probably endorse McCain - and that is the worst thing I know about Thompson. Second worst being, his role in the passage of McCain-Feingold. I also disagree with his acquittal vote on one of the Clinton impeachment counts. But then, all the other major candidates are worse, one way or another.
“BTW, I am calm...”
No, I said, “Keep clam” not calm. That’s the motto that Ivar’s uses. I guess you misread what I wrote.
“There’s a name for a politician who never flip-flops and never panders: loser.”
Well, I prefer to call them unethical. But most all of them are, sad to say. If you think candidates who never flip-flop or pander are losers, I think that comment says a lot about you. It does indeed make one wonder about your ethics.
Speaking of ethics, you said, “I don’t take kindly to someone accusing me of lacking in ethics.” Quite sensitive are we? First of all, I didn’t directly accuse you of lacking ethics. My exact quote was, “I noticed on your home page that you teach business and specialize in financial markets at the University of Washington Business School. Glad you don’t teach ethics and politics.”
There’s a big difference (in my opinion) between saying that you are unethical, or lack ethics, than saying “I’m glad you don’t teach ethics”. Whether you are an ethical person or not, I cannot say, but I am beginning to wonder.
I have gone back to read several of your posts that you’ve written over the past few days and have noticed that you are a big Romney defender (on a conservative forum of all places). You seem to have an answer for every lie, every flip-flop and every inconsistent comment that Mitt has ever made (and he’s made a lot of them). You defended Mitt when he said he owned a gun—he doesn’t. You defended his comment about being with his dad when he marched with MLK—he didn’t. Mitt said he didn’t support abortion, and yet his wife gave money to Planned Parenthood and he claims to know nothing about it. Maybe not, but he also attended an event that was sponsored by Planned Parenthood.
This information I posted below is from Hotair.com http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/18/heart-ache-mitt-attended-planned-parenthood-fundraiser-in-1994/
~Mitt Romney attended a fund-raising reception for Planned Parenthood in 1994 in conjunction with a $150 donation his wife made to the organization — notwithstanding Romney’s contention that he had “no recollection” of the circumstances under which his wife made gave money to the abortion-rights group.
In the photograph obtained by ABC News, Romney and his wife, Ann, are shown in a yellow-and-white tent chatting with local political activists, including Nicki Nichols Gamble, who was then president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts…
“They were both there, and I remember very well chatting with both of them, and talking about his support for the pro-choice agenda,” she said. “We talked about the fact that he was taking a pro-choice position on the issues, and we were very pleased about that.”…
“I can understand that he might not remember the check — it’s surprising to me that he would not remember the event,” she said. “His main motivation for being there was a political motivation.”~
You’ve really come up with some creative (slick) excuses in defending Mitt for some of the lies and inconsistent comments he’s made. Mitt talks out of both sides of his mouth and you seem to have ready answer for Mitt’s lies and flip-flops. Are you a paid hack for the Mitt campaign? If you aren’t you should apply for the job because you fit right in, especially since you think that pandering and flip-flopping is a virtue. I can’t believe you actually said that candidates that don’t pander or flip-flop are losers. If you don’t think that calls into question your ethics, well, let’s just say Mitt would be proud to have someone like you on payroll—if you aren’t already on it.
You said you would appreciate an apology. I apologize, but not for what I said, I’m sorry that you are so sensitive about what I’ve said. You called me “delusional” and yet you don’t see my crying and hollering about getting my little feelings hurt and demanding an apology from you. In the three years I have been here I’ve been called worst things than delusional. I’ve never asked anyone to apologize for calling me names or insulting me. There’s a lot of heated and passionate debate that goes on in this forum. I think that is what makes FR a great place to debate. If you are so sensitive that you can’t handle some of the comments that people make about you I suggest you don’t post here. As the saying goes, if you can take the heat...well, you know the drill. Maybe you ought to check out RINO.com where liberals like Rooty and slick Mitt are revered. As Kevmo has been trying to tell you, FR is a CONSERVATIVE forum and we really aren’t interested in promoting RINO’s here.
Keep cLAM.
Sigh. Never, sadly.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe we just may be looking for a real conservative instead of someone who just gives the idea lip service to get elected.
How about Ann Coulter for president and me for vice president (I would really love to work under her).
“Isn’t there some rule against spamming threads with material from other websites?”
I believe there is. I didn’t realize that posting ONE article ONE time is considered to be spamming. By the way, who appointed you Mod of FR?
“It’s really annoying.”
Have you ever considered not reading the posts that annoy you? Try it sometime—you’ll be less annoyed.
“DMW, can’t you make an argument in your own words, or are your communication skills so inept that you feel the need to lift whole articles from other webpages?”
That really bothers you when I post facts about Slick Mitt that put him in a less than favorable light doesn’t it?
I went back and read some of your past comments on other Romney threads. You ARE really slick. You have an answer for every negative comment about your guy, Mitt. You say the same things over and over again which leads me to believe you have a “talking points” list. What a shill. You even defend Mitt for trying to be more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Here’s your post from another thread not too long ago.
Another poster said, “Romney told gays he would be a stronger supporter of their agenda than Ted Kennedy”.
You answered, “That was thirteen years ago! Political beliefs evolve over time. There’s not a man alive who hasn’t changed his mind about some political issue in 13 years”.
Amazing! Here’s the problem with your comment. Mitt has been trying to convince people that he’s a lifelong conservative. BIG lie. He would be better off just being honest and tell people that he was formally a liberal (like his record shows him to be) and more recently he’s become more conservative in his beliefs (some of them). Changing one’s mind over thirteen years isn’t the issue (on second thought, with Mitt it really is since he’s done it so often), it’s not being honest about who he was (a liberal) and now saying he’s a life long conservative. Not only is it a lie (his record proves it), it’s a complete joke.
Now get your talking points list out and copy and paste it here to respond back to me. Oh wait a minute, you make your own arguments in your own words because you are such a skilled communicator, aren’t you? I bet you’ve got those talking points memorized pretty good by now. You make Mitt proud.
By the way, I seriously doubt that the propaganda you’ve been posting about Mitt is having an impact on here on FR. In case you didn’t know this, FR is a CONSERVATIVE forum where we promote CONSERVATIVE candidates. Maybe your propaganda would be more effective over at WA or at DU for that matter.
Keep cLAM.
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe we just may be looking for a real conservative instead of someone who just gives the idea lip service to get elected.”
Worth repeating.
You’re right, no law can be enforced 100%, but they wouldn’t have to be. All they have to do is enforce it 50% to get the expected results, and they don’t even do that. And with no ceiling on medical care costs, with mandatory health insurance, we’d still be be paying too much. The people who are supposed to be working for us should be working on reforming insurance, not just finding a way for everyone to pay too much.
My idea on “dealing” with health care can be summed up in two words; Free Market.
Two more might be Tort Reform.
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.