A question for Romney and Huckabee supporters

Vanity | 12/30/2007 | Hank Kimball

[supercat]

And that student of hispanic descent, spent his entire career as a student in Arkansas public schools, from the age of four. Graduated from high school, one of the top kids in his class, but when he applied for financial aid, he wasn’t eligible for the various scholarships or grants because of his status — a status that he had no decision in and no control over.

Is it fair that some children will have better educational opportunities than others because their parents invested their money in a college fund while the others' parents spent it on booze and cigarettes--spending decisions the children had no decision in or control over? The reek of socio-communism in Huckabee's rhetoric is even more alarming than the pro-criminal element.

[Joya]

Huckabee scares the spit outta me.

The Dems love him.

Because he is one of them.

I am NOT giving away the store to anybody.

Certainly not to Huckabee.

Not to anyone else either.

Not to anyone who wants to squander the sovereignty of the USA, not to anyone who wants to reward illegals, not to anyone who the pollsters say is a front-runner, not to any local politician who is so deluded as to think because he was a mayor or a governor that he’s ready to take on national and international politics and wartime defense, not to anyone who just pretends to be a conservative, not to politically correct parrots, and not to anyone who wants to destroy our heritage.

I’M NOT GIVING AWAY THE STORE.

= = =
If one of the RINOs wins the GOP primary, conservatism will be dealt a very heavy blow. We can’t afford that right now. I hope and pray Huckabee doesn’t get it. If he beat the Democrat candidate, which is unlikely, he’d be a risk to national security, he would raise taxes, he would promote his pet socialist programs, and he would be soft on illegal aliens. Huck as prez would be a DISASTER.

[redangus]

I think the main reason behind this anomaly is that FReepers do not represent the general public. We are as a group much more conservative than the average American. And some of us are ideological purists who would rather see the Republican Party go down in flames than vote for someone that does not meet their purity test. They have forgotten the Reagan adage that someone who agrees with 80% of what you say can be a pretty good political friend. On the other hand most Americans are moderate to moderately conservative and find the general positions of the two candidates in question to be pretty reasonable. Would these same people support a Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter? Fred probably yes, Duncan probably not. Fred does a pretty good job of articulating the conservative view without being harsh. Duncan on the other hand comes across as being somewhat harsh and my way or the highway. Duncan may be a Reagan baby, but he has none of RR’s ability to express the conservative viewpoint in a way that makes it palatable to the general public.

FR is what it is and its members are who they are, but they do not represent the majority of Americans or the majority of the Republican Party hence the difference.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I suspect that many FReepers who oppose Romney would support him, even though he doesn't even claim to be as conservative as Thompson, if they believed that he was at least as conservative as he claims to be.

You might be right. Whatever the case, he's not that conservative, but the median Freeper is, and so unsurprisingly he doesn't have a majority of Freeper support. The only mystery is whether, or why, someone would consider lack of majority-Freeper support to be a make-or-break problem for a candidate running for the (R) nomination.

[Joya]

IOWA: VOTE FRED !!!

BUMP TO THE TOP!

[Finny]

Sorry to take so long -- you ask, "... 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?"

Being an MBA type thinker, Romney believes in the power of management-in-the-right-hands to solve problems. He operates on the assumption that as long as the right people are telling others what to do, aka "managing," things will improve and as an MBA, he also always pursues growth as the final "good," the mission. That's fine in business and especially large companies with a lot of employees to "manage" and direct.

But the United States of America is not a business populated by employees and its government does not need to be "grown." The USA is a nation of individuals whose government is "by the people, for the people." Shrinkage of government should continue to be the main principle of Republicanism, and Republicans should continue to respect the ability and fundamental right of individuals to make their own decisions and pay their own consequences. Romney's penchant for "big business management" makes him bad news for limited government thinking.