A question for Romney and Huckabee supporters

Vanity | 12/30/2007 | Hank Kimball

[Kleon]

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?

My answer is that on the campaign trail they often say what your average freeper wants to hear. But like Ann Coulter says, they all talk a good game when they're campaigning. I usually ignore all this campaign rhetoric and try to pick a candidate who I know can get to the White House and be an effective leader.

At first Thompson was my pick, but lately he's reminded me of people who apply to my office who are qualified, yet it's clear they just like the idea of being in a law firm. They skate along, doing the bare minimum required of them, thinking that if they talk big people won't notice that they lack the drive and ambition to do something really meaningful. They can often be quite convincing.

[LexBaird]

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?

Your question is basically flawed. The polls here are entirely self-selecting. They don't really say anything about FR members or viewers in general; they say something about those who are motivated to take the poll.

The polls on FR favor Fred Thompson for the same reason that the post-debate polls favored Ron Paul. Because his supporters felt motivated to answer it in large numbers; it gives them self-validation.

[Not just another dumb blonde]

Don’t kid yourself. Almost all politicians are actors playing a part to get to where they want to go. Sad.

[SomeCallMeTim]

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.

Seriously... just how much do you think anyone could advance the conservative agenda in Massachusetts?? I think he did 'OK'...

[Finny]

Thompson is my pick if I look at just ideology but I believe Romney would be the better chief executive.

Business executive MBA thinkers like Romney, whose experience has been in running/troubleshooting LARGE companies/operations as opposed to small businesses, use management and control to "tame" the beast. Profitability via growth is their goal. Their means to making it happen is by management oversight. Romney's "ideology" is business efficiency through management, and as such, he represents more and bigger government oversight and control. More and bigger government control and oversight comes at the expense of two things: our personal freedoms and our labor (tax dollars). ROMNEY IS A BAD CHOICE BECAUSE OF HIS BUSINESS/EXECUTIVE APPROACH TO PROBLEM-SOLVING.

Fred Thompson's ideology matches exactly with what I have always been taught was the core essential of what makes a Republican a Republican: he is skeptical of government meddling in peoples' lives and asks, "Should the government be doing this, and if so, at what level?" Romney, being a business/executive person, would seek to use government to "fix" perceived social and fiscal inequities.

Fred Thompson's ideology tells him that government contributes to such problems and the only "fix" is to shrink government. Fred Thompson thinks, as did Ronald Reagan and as do I and Rush Limbaugh, that being a Republican means you believe that government must be reigned in, made smaller, limited, and that free people will prosper and create moral societies (unlike what Roe v. Wade has led to) when government is LIMITED and when those free people are free to direct the fruits of their labor to where they see fit.

Romney's business management ideology would translate into more government oversight to overrule personal choices and freedoms, and that is a very bad thing. Fred Thompson is the right man for the U.S. Presidency. I hope and pray that he wins the Republican primary. Fred Thompson will soundly defeat any candidate the Democrats put up.

[Swordfished]

Here’s an answer from another perspective, explaining Huckabee’s support:

Single-issue voters.

If abortion is murder, then any candidate compromising to any degree on it is to be avoided like the plague. Maybe all the pro-life campaigning has worked - and now abortion is the #1 issue for masses of Republican voters.

‘Letting the states decide’ whether or not they want to allow ‘murder’ is almost as untenable a position as being pro-choice. Thus, Thompson and others taking the Federalist position are unacceptable to these people.

Huckabee has all the emotional gooey goodness that pro-lifers are attracted too. Why Huckabee over Hunter or others? Why Huckabee over Brownback? - electability.

[Finny]

I'm sorry ... but talk about "lack of fire in the belly," your guy Hunter exhibits a much larger lack of it than Thompson. Thompson has had a wide and varied career in which he has become successful in different things. He has never been a career politician. During his years in the senate, his strong support of genuine conservative ideals (with the exception of CFR, a big goof on his part) put him on the radar of many Republicans, including my parents along with several FReepers, long before there was talk of him running in the primaries. Fred's LIFE is a walking, talking illustration of an individual who has a whole hell of a lot of "fire in the belly" when it comes to being successful at different things and when it comes to getting on the radar of those interested in knowing what's going on with things that concern them.

Hunter is no doubt a fine conservative and a good man. But he is a CAREER POLITICIAN in a safely conservative district who, in 26 years in elected office in California, has so little "fire in the belly" that most lifelong California Republicans, myself and my parents and many relatives included, had never heard of him before the primaries. Over the course of TWENTY SIX YEARS, think of all the newspaper editorials in state and national papers that Hunter didn't write to voice Republican ideals; all the appearances on regional and national radio and television that Hunter didn't make to rally Republicans to the cause, over the course of 26 years ... that, my friend, is TRUE "lack of fire in the belly."

[KC_Conspirator]

I want someone who can win as well, but Hucksterbee would be an easy kill.

[KC_Conspirator]

The answer to your question is that Romney is full of $hit and Hucksterbee has an equally bad record and plays to our worst biases.

Fred has the most parts of the 3 legged conservative stool.

[rossusa]

I appreciate your thoughts but isn’t it possible that a beast of a bureaucracy would run someone with less or no executive experience and in the end take away more of our freedoms with excess regulation?

[ElPatriota]

...Free Republic is more conservative than Republican - Duncan Hunter’s support is based primarily on his immigration and trade stances - Thompson appears to be the only electable one that comes close to FR standards....

You left something out that to me, as a social-conservative is most important of all: The Quality of his character = TRUST. I TRUST Duncan Hunter because I have known him for a long time. I voted for him when I live in San Diego CA ages ago.

Because of the time I lived there, practically on the border next to Tijuana, San Diegans understood the problem with Illegals crossing the border... when this was NOT an issue for the rest of the country. Duncan promissed to do something about it... And he certainly did!

If you met him and spole with him, you would see he if not your typical politician... I does not have the 'slickess' that they usually have. He would appear a normal person, genuine, real... perhaps that was his problem, people are more imprssese by second car-salesmem, and that he is not! Not less important, his track record throughout his political life speaks well of him. Duke Cunningham, elected about the same time, is an example of one whose character went the other way. Still a Hero nevertheless

The way Duncan lives his life, his family, his sons are or have been in the Iraq on several tours... IOW... He is the real deal! and can be TRUSTED. It's really a shame FR and Republicans in general did not see the quality of this man.

Now I guess this answers the rest of the questions! :)

The rest? MaCaain, Romney, JULIEANNIE? - LOL - A certified backstabbers who might as well be a Demcrap, A flip-flopper with lots money, whose millions of WORDS have little value and JullieAnnie... WELL, pratically an enemy of social conservatives. I think his candidacy was engineered by the homosexual-agenda in part, as a power move in an attempt to push Social-conservatives off the Republican Party.

And now HUCKABEE... Let's just say, realistically, although I will support Duncan to the end, I will start looking ahead just in case. I have listened to Huck already and frankly he did not seem to be the two headed monster he is painted out to be. Not convinced by a LONG shot... But interested enough to listen. I have no rush to make to choose a candidate since one of my options is simply, not to vote.

As to Mr. Fred Thompsom, well, I find him uninspiring to be honest... and just like with Huckabee and the others, the trust factor takes a while to develope, so we'll see.

[mkjessup]

For someone who claims to ‘know’ Duncan Hunter, you prove that you know nothing at all about him.

It’s simple FRiend, Hunter isn’t a showhorse, he is a WORKhorse.

Hunter’s campaign quite frankly operates on a different set of principles, the goal remains the same (to win the Presidency) but Hunter isn’t going to pull the antics of a RuPaul or the Huckster to draw attention to himself.

His conservative credentials are unimpeachable, he is the only true Reagan Republican in the race, and primary voters will either come to their senses, or the GOP will do to conservatives what the Democrats did to Reagan, i.e., when Reagan said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me”.

So too will it be for conservatives if the GOP gives in to the temptation of RINO-smack and sticks the needle into it’s vein.

God help us all.

[mkjessup]

Fred Thompson is the right man for the U.S. Presidency. I hope and pray that he wins the Republican primary. Fred Thompson will soundly defeat any candidate the Democrats put up.

He'll at least put 'em to sleep.

I actually tried to listen to that little 17 minute YouTube statement that Thompson made to the voters of Iowa, and after 2 to 3 minutes, I was nodding off - and that was after 2 full steaming cups o' Maxwell House 100 percent caffeine!

Thompson is a fine commentator, no surprise why he would sub for Paul Harvey, and his theatrical skills are to be admired.

He is truly the candidate of chronic insomniacs, in fact he might be the only chance for relief and a restful night's sleep they're going to get.

Sad, but true.

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

Well, you make a great case. You're Romney's most convincing supporter here, that's for sure.

I really liked your summary, but we'll just have to agree to disagre on one key point.

"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."

I think, even if you're correct about them being close in terms of philosphy, there's an argument to be made that Thompson could govern more effectively.

I don't pretend to understand the whys and wherefores, but Fred is clearly thought pretty highly of in Washington and has some solid contacts. He was named Watergate counsel at age 30 despite having no inside-Washington experience. He spent 8 years as a senator, involved with some pretty key committees. And he was selected by Bush to shepherd Alito and Roberts through the Senate, even though he was no longer in the Senate.

Wouldn't you agree that this last point is a pretty strong one in his favor as far as being a reflection on his ability to get things done?

Hank

[JAKraig]

Wouldn’t you agree that this last point is a pretty strong one in his favor as far as being a reflection on his ability to get things done?

____________________________________________

I started reading this thread last night, I think it is one of the longest I have participated in here on the FR.

I think I pretty much share most of your views. I really like what I think Fred stands for. He is not perfect, he is good and would likely make a good president. I really think most of the field would do well.
There is a problem that has to be dealt with for whomever wins the general election, a democratic congress.

Fred having been a senator may have some help on this point because some of his buddies are still there, McCain would have the same help but that help could also be a problem for them. While you make friends in congress you also make enemies.

GW thought he would ride into Washington on his white horse and be kind to everyone and they would all get along with each other, they tore him to shreds.

Mostly I am pleased with the Republican field, they are all much better than the Democratic side. True McCain is not a lot different but he does believe in the WOT.

The most important thing though is that whomever it is that we pick for the Republican nomination will have to beat the Hildabeast. The MSM will portray McCain and Giuliani as Hillary lite and Huckabee as Hickabee. The three of them won’t stand a chance against Hillary. I truly believe that Fred Thompson has the intelligence to beat Hillary but not the work ethic. He has not shown a willingness to campaign hard enough to get the nomination so far. If Freds problem is not stamina then it is organization. Organization and leadership skills are qualities that go together well, when you mix in a strong work ethic you can expect to see a lot of work getting done. I just don’t see Fred as having it. When he announced I was on cloud nine expecting him to easily gain the nomination, he has really disappointed me. Before there was Fred I was leaning toward Mr. Romney but I dumped him when Fred jumped in. I have now gone back to Romney. He has shown his willingness to fight and work hard. He has shown his ability to get other people to work hard for him, if he pulls off Iowa it will be a big deal. He has had some incredible bad press, if he still pulls it off then I say he is the man.

[dmw]

formally a liberal

FORMERLY a liberal

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

" actually tried to listen to that little 17 minute YouTube statement that Thompson made to the voters of Iowa, and after 2 to 3 minutes, I was nodding off - and that was after 2 full steaming cups o' Maxwell House 100 percent caffeine!"

-----

Good luck with your narcolepsy.

Hank

[Two-Bits]

I want someone who can win - Huckabee has been maligned by alot of people here. I don’t agree with him 100% on all issues, but he has the Mojo.

This is the same thing we heard here in California regarding our RINO Governor. Don't vote for a Conversative because he can't win. Arno is the way to go. Now look at the mess we are in. Were you aware that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two bills on Oct. 12 that essentially turn the state's public schools over to homosexual and transgender activists.

Beginning in January 2008, California public schools must teach children as young as 3 to 5 years old that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle and that kids can choose their "gender." This means banning the terms "husband" and "wife" for the more progressively inclusive term "partner." "Moms" and "dads" will morph into sexually neutral "parents." Textbooks will be rewritten to blot out any reminder of married-couple-led families as a social norm. Gender-confused kids will get to use the restrooms of their choice. Any expression of negativity toward deviant sexuality will be punished as "bigotry.".

Elect a RINO and this is what you will get, a water downed liberal.

Please don't take this as picking on you but when I hear "vote for this person only because he can win", the warning bells go off. Been There, Done That.

[11th_VA]

Were you aware that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two bills on Oct. 12 that essentially turn the state's public schools over to homosexual and transgender activists.

I was in California in 200 when the Govenator veto'd that bill - I thought he was going to veto it again. But I don't think Gov. Huckabee would ever endorse something like that ...

[Checkers]

“The HLA is the biggest strawman around. What exactly is the point of arguing about something that is absolutely positively never going to happen?
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?”

At least we can dismiss the notion that Fred!! is the conservative and Mitt is some kind of moderate/lib.