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
OK, here's the rest of the story. Alot of conservatives (like myself) are Pro-Worker, and Pro-Life. That's generally how I vote. But that pretty much means I don't have 'real' party. The RATs are more Pro-worker and the GOP in recent years have been more Pro-Life.
Romney, McCain, and Rudy pass neither of those tests.
When I pulled the lever for Bush, I held my nose and voted for Supreme court justices - OK we got two. But McCain? He's from the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP. Neither Pro-Worker, nor Pro-Life. I might as well vote for Obama and get half-a-loaf ...
It’s very simple Hank.
Freepers are not about to buy into the inexperienced candidate known as Mike Huckabee.
Likewise, Romney’s flip-flops on so many issues creates too much doubt about just what he stands for, and whether he would choose expediency over principle as President.
Duncan Hunter is the only true conservative in the bunch, Fred Thompson may have conservative beliefs and may be right on many of the issues, however his lack of the proverbial ‘fire in the belly’ concerns me.
For example, he is on the record now as saying that he’s not “particularly interested in running for President”, and while that might be hailed as a semi-breath of fresh air, you can believe that a candidate that “isn’t interested” in running for President, is going to get his clock cleaned and his ass handed to him by an opponent who IS “interested” in being President and that is where the ‘fire in the belly’ issue comes into play.
Duncan Hunter has been on the long march, slogging it out in the trenches on a shoestring budget, but he’s determined and not about to quit. Thompson is perceived (fair or not) as being a lazy candidate and it’s questionable that he can ramp it up if he WERE to become the GOP nominee.
Every time the GOP compromises it’s principles, we end up with a ‘Rat in the White House. When the GOP returns to it’s conservative Reagan-inspired base, we get a Republican in the White House.
Duncan Hunter is the only candidate who can truly lay claim to that Reagan mantle, and yet his own humility won’t let him trumpet the fact that he arrived in Washington in 1980 as one of the original Reagan Revolutionaries, and he’s got not an actor and martial arts expert like Chuck Norris, but Chuck YEAGER, a real American aviator, patriot and hero endorsing him.
The choice ought to be clear to anyone with a room temperature IQ.
McCain is lifelong pro-life.
“Pro-worker” is code for proletarian. You do have a party, the Communist Party.
They could be party hacks
But here's something else, among my cirle of friends they support Huckabee, Rudy, and McCain - none for Fred or Hunter.
What I asked was: Why do you think 70 to 80% of FR supports Fred or Hunter? You must have some theory?
Perhaps it is because we can read.?! ;)
Hunter.
The only coherent argument I’ve heard for backing Rooooooody, Slick Mikey, The McCainiac or Romney is that they have a better chance than anyone else.
So the logic is “back a likely winner rather than the (somewhat) more principled politician”.
Not me, not until the election when all of us are reduced to the lesser of two evils.
I’m no Limbaugh. I have the luxury of backing a candidate before the primaries. If my guy makes it then great. If not then it’s time to exercise the exact same moral relativism that every voter must and vote for the lesser evil.
I’ve got relatives in Iowa. They didn’t know about the actual records of *any* of the candidates. I’ve spammed them with links from FreeRepublic and emails from BufordP and let them decide. I think I have two idiots swayed from canceling out good votes. The rest would have voted the first R on the ballot in any case. Maybe now they’ll pick a better R.
All the candidates on both sides suck in their own special ways and to varying degrees, even Hunter.
Who was it that started that “Your candidate sucks!” thread?
That really woke me up.
He has also had some huge problems in recalling the truth ala bubba.
His record in business is superlative but if he's willing to let a little socialism into the equation he is not my candidate during the time that we pick candidates for our side.
Huckabee exploits Christ to win votes.
Amen.
I fear it’s a combination of money and the press. In what ratio is debatable.
I support Romney, and in my opinion he is the strongest candidate for the GOP and here are 4 of the more important reasons why I believe this is so:
1. He’s a former Governor. Governors win Presidential elections.
2. He’s got tremendous private sector/business world experience and success. As an economic conservative, that’s a big plus for me.
3. He is a center-right Candidate who will have a broad appeal to both Conservatives and Independents. No candidate for the Presidency,in this country, wins without the Independent voters.
4. His personal life has been impeccable. The Democratic slime machine will have a very difficult time dredging up anything negative in Romney’s personal history.
That’s my take on it.
Most conservatives are pro-business and pro-growth. Pat Buchanan's populist protectionists are still a minority in the GOP. Huckabee is tapping into that, but that is not going to get the majority of conservatives.
Nice bunch of fluff for Duncan. I like Duncan but the truth is he’s only been a congressman and isn’t ready for prime time ,YET. I think Fred is still in the mix. I will find out if I’m right in less than a week. Unlike some on this forum I will support whoever gets the nomination. I will be a lot more enthusiastic about some than others.
Good analogy.
I disagree. George HW Bush ran as the pro-choice candidate in 1980. When he was President he was solidly pro-life, including giving us Clarence Thomas. Souter was a snooker job by Warren Rudman and that fool Sununu. Also, while I have been solidly conservative in the Reagan mode, I'm sure I could find some disagreement with some of my positions 10 years ago.
So you’ve got no problem with the Massechussets manditory health care and his indirect funding of abortion clinics or you’re just holding your nose?
I really take issue with that, WHen Gov Huckabee said he was a Christian, it would be like someone saying he's a member of the Chamber of Commerce - both say alot about the person ...
You obviously see Romney as a conservative, some of us don’t.
However, I don't see any candidate who can appeal to, persuade, and motivate as many Americans to back conservative positions as he apparently can -- especially as this pertains to our highest principles and most important issues.
As for all the muckraking and mud throwing in his direction, I see most of it falling into these categories:
1. untrue
2. half-truths and distortions
3. the fallable past of a man whose stated principles, goals, and objectives have risen above, as he has grown
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.