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
“...already great support from Michelle Malkin, Beck, Paul Weyrich, the American Conservative Union, Bob Jones III, the list goes on and on.”
Don’t forget Michael Novak, the Hon. Judge Robert Bork and the National Review.
~I’ve actually read some jackasses’ posts that Bork and the NRniks are RINOs.
Hank, I hope you’ll disavow such tripe.
“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.”
I must point out that you failed to answer my questions.
“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.”
Your post makes absolutely no sense.
“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.”
You mean they like “playing the part”.
“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.”
Yep.
“He spent 8 years as a senator, involved with some pretty key committees.”
His committee investigated China-gate. Nothing happened. John Glenn rolled Thompson and Clinton let Glenn ride on the shuttle as payback.
Look it up.
Interestingly enough, I'm not yet entirely "divorced" from being a Duncan Hunter supporter. If I were an Iowa resident, I'd likely vote for Mr. Hunter on Thursday. However, I'm not an Iowa resident, and I'm having to make a decision on where I think the race will be in three weeks when we hold district caucuses. Believing that Mr. Hunter will no longer be viable at that time, I'm moving towards Mr. Romney. If Mr. Hunter miraculously sweeps Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Michigan, I'll be making a different decision.
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.
These are good points in Mr. Thompson's favor, but there are two big drawbacks. The first is that he didn't perform that well when he chaired the Chinese campaign contribution investigation. Admittedly, John Glenn had plenty of influence and used all of that influence to save the Democrats instead of acting with integrity as Barry Goldwater and other Republicans did in Watergate. Glenn's conduct was despicable and unpatriotic, but the fact remains that Fred Thompson wasn't effective in his highest profile leadership role. The second is that being effective as a legislator is not the same as being effective as an executive. The differences are subtle but real. Legislators put together coalitions with other legislators in order to pass bills through the legislature, but they are mostly working as equals to build coalitions. Executives must put together teams that report to the executive. The team members are not equals to the executive or even within the team but instead must report to the executive as a team. Never having been either a legislator or an executive, I can't explain this difference as clearly as I would like, but I've heard and read these explanations enough to believe them.
As a young man, Fred Thompson impressed the right people in the Tennessee Republican Party. He came to the attention of Howard Baker, and the party has been grooming him for leadership for a long time. However, the people who are groomed in that way tend to be moderate, pragmatic politicians and not conservative ideologues as many FReepers want to see Mr. Thompson. The high points of his resume that you cited are true, and he might end up being an effective president. His lack of executive experience means that there is a real risk that he won't be effective, and the inside-Washington status that you cited is another reason why I don't see him as being more conservative than Mr. Romney.
We can make good arguments for both Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. I'm quick to point out instances where Fred Thompson hasn't been as conservative as he could be because those cases show that we're likely to get a similar degree of conservative advocacy from either of these men as president. If neither is more conservative, the question is effectiveness as an executive, and I'm supporting Mitt Romney (as long as we don't have a Duncan Hunter miracle) because he has shown his effectiveness as an executive. If someone else doesn't believe that the distinction between executive effectiveness and legislative effectiveness is real and sees Fred Thompson as being more conservative on the issues, then I'd expect that person to support Fred Thompson.
Bill
Illustrate your point. Give me a scenario in which a president with less executive experience would have problems.
It’s more about the personality of the individual. On the debate stage in Iowa, Romney looked to Thompson for leadership. Mitt Romney is too much like a pencil-necked Gilligan.
Fred Thompson would be a John Wayne president.
“I must point out that you failed to answer my questions.”
The last senator-turned-president was JFK who demonstrated the ultimate in chief executive ability when he stood up to the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, proving your point 100% wrong.
I’m actually thinking my primary vote might matter this time around. That’s a bummer, because I can’t decide what to do.
“The last senator-turned-president was JFK who demonstrated the ultimate in chief executive ability when he stood up to the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, proving your point 100% wrong.”
Stood up?
~shakes head~
We gave away our missiles in Turkey. JFK was a disaster when it came to Cuba.
You’d know that if you’d ever read a book rather than watching movies.
Another great post that nails it.
How many movies have I watched, and which ones?
Now let’s see who can answer questions.
You still haven’t answered my previous question, Mr. Question Expert. The last thing you want to do is try to answer it, because you cannot. post 428
What it would take to win against the democrat is a united party and a candidate that could unite the party. As you can see from these posts on Huck, he could never in a million years unite the entire party against the demos. He’s a liberal running as a conservative and the reason you see all of the negative posts on him is that ...we know and understand him, probably as good as you. He’s another Bill Clinton, wanting to be loved by everyone. We don’t need to be loved, we need a president, not a preacher to confide.
It is beyond most of us why people aren’t smart enough to see through him. He’s already shown the people of AR what he capable of and they didn’t like it. Even the Baptist heirarchy didn’t like him. He is absolutely totally ignorant on foreign affairs which could get a lot of Americans killed. I could go on and on and on, but you probably aren’t listening and don’t want to listen, so I’ll just leave you with one thought...
There are millions of true conservatives out there right now that just refuse to go vote for anything but an absolute true conservative, I am just one. If Huck is nominated the republican party is dead and the demos will win in 08. Mark my words, it will happen. The party will not unite behind anything other than a true conservative.
I respect your opinion, even though it’s uninformed and misguided. I truly wish that you could logically look at the entire group and make an informed decision not based on emotion but rather facts.
And you have yet to refute my comment that Mitt Romney looks like a pencil-necked Gilligan compared to Fred Thompson’s resemblance to John Wayne.
_________________________________________________________
Fred looks like an old man and Romney looks like a president in a Hollywood movie.
Fred does SOUND like we want a president to sound.
Thanks
You’re welcome.
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.