Sure. But the point is, we’re mostly working within a party, and for candidates running for the nomination of a party. The REPUBLICAN Party.
***The same Yeah, but... response I usually see.
Well, I care, because the nominee will be chosen by Republicans, not just conservatives, however defined. And I’d like the nominee be someone for whom I can vote.
***That goes to my original point. This is not a GOP website, it is a conservative website. JimRob has a pretty good definition on the front page.
Winning 13% in the nationally-hyped beauty contest in Iowa would have eventurally yielded a lot more delegates in a lot of other states than winning 8% of the delegates in Wyoming.
***We shall see. The landscape changed when the media didn’t let Hunter into the debates, in a state that’s supposed to be an early state where the focus is on inclusiveness. I see that your arguments are trending more republican than conservative.
What’s the next Hunter target, Delaware? Rhode Island? ;-)
***I don’t know Hunter’s strategy.
How’s Mr. Hunter currently polling in his home state? Has he broken 5%?
***I’m here in liberal Cahleeforneya. Remember Proposition 187? Remember how polls don’t mean much to Hunter supporters? How’s that Intrade dropout contract for Thompson in January and in February? Does it give you confidence? The cool thing about the Intrade stuff is, if it really gets under your skin you can actually go ahead and do something about it and if you’re right you would make money, maybe as soon as tomorrow. I can’t do much about polls in liberal Cahleeforneeya, as far as I can tell.
I don’t see that Mr. Hunter fits the Reagan mold at all. He isn’t a leader.
***Circular reasoning. You said before that you don’t think he’s a leader, so now he doesn’t fit the mold because he isn’t a leader in your estimation.
He doesn’t have the charisma, the communications skill, the easy affability of Mr. Reagan.
***Neither does Thompson. Romney and Huckster seem to have that covered.
Mr. Reagan was successful in part because he was a brilliant politician. I won’t say that Mr. Thompson is a brilliant politician, nor a great communicator of the first order, nor the most charismatic man in politics today.
***Then by your own reasoning, Thompson does not fit the Reaganite mold.
But he is a far better politician, far better communicator, and far more charismatic than Mr. Hunter.
***I disagree, and part of that disagreement is in the commitment to the message. Nuancing pro-life with a federalist approach is a copout, no one would do it with baby-killing. So when you proceed from a morally inferior position, your communication of the message becomes inferior. Hunter is a better politician and communicator because he proceeds from a higher moral ground. Charisma isn’t something I can measure very well, it’s usually more to do with looks (women swoon over Romney) and Hunter is fine compared to Thompson in that regard.
As well, he has much of the easy affability, comfort with oneself, in one’s own skin, of Mr. Reagan. Mr. Hunter doesn’t.
***You’re simply way off here. Oh well, it’s not worth arguing over.
I don’t think that Mr. Hunter could tap into a beer keg. With help.
***I see your argumentation is once again trending towards republicanism rather than conservatism.
He’s a nice enough guy, a good and decent man, a good conservative, ***I see this kind of stuff a lot. By the way, it doesn’t jibe with the earlier comfortable-in-his-own skin remark.
but an entire bust as a presidential contender.
***Get back to us when Thompson drops out and endorses McCain. Most Thompson supporters on Free Republic will feel betrayed. The ones who do not feel betrayed are the ones I worry the most about, because they’re republican operatives infiltrating Free Republic, not conservatives. Hunter’s support comes from those dedicated to the same idealogy, and they detect integrity in him. If he endorsed a RINO, we would feel betrayed. I do not detect the same level of commitment in Thompson supporters, they are in it for the political win, the same way aRINOld attracted so many GOP supporters.
I remember he was touted as a moderate, and as better than the Gray Davis or Bustamante alternative.
***And I remember that aRINOld was touted as “conservative enough”. Sound familiar? Is aRINOld “conservative enough” for you now?
What I remember was being told that the fact that he was a pro-abort and such didn’t matter, because, after all, he wouldn’t have anything to do with that stuff anyway, and he’d tap conservatives for his administration, etc., etc. Reminds me of Mr. Giuliani, not Mr. Thompson.
***Me, too. At least Thompson has a pro-life record, so I can vote for him with a clean conscience. But I don’t have to support him. I learned the aRINOld lesson that so many freepers and republicans have not.
“If Thompson drops out and endorses McCain, would that give you pause about his conservatism?”
No, it wouldn’t. I don’t care for Mr. McCain, but he has compiled a record of a moderate conservative, albeit more centrist in recent years. I wouldn’t vote for him in the Maryland primary, even if Mr. Thompson had endorsed him, but I would vote for him in the general election, should he be the nominee.
***Good to know.
I don’t think so. Mr. Thompson isn’t Mr. Schwarzenegger. The comparison is not only ridiculous, but offensive.
***Then I’ll just need to bookmark it and hope I remember where it is later if we find ourselves in the same sort of mess with the presidency this time rather than the california GOP sad state of affairs.
“Sure. But the point is, we’re mostly working within a party, and for candidates running for the nomination of a party. The REPUBLICAN Party.
***The same Yeah, but... response I usually see.
“Well, I care, because the nominee will be chosen by Republicans, not just conservatives, however defined. And I’d like the nominee be someone for whom I can vote.
***That goes to my original point. This is not a GOP website, it is a conservative website. JimRob has a pretty good definition on the front page.”
I don’t feel like this response exactly answers what I said.
You keep mentioning that this isn’t a GOP website, but that’s irrelevant to whom the REPUBLICAN nominee will be, and that is what we’ve been discussing.
Since the folks who will vote in the REPUBLICAN primaries and caucuses will not be required to vote according to the principles spelled out herein, if we care about our candidate having a chance to win, we will need to care about how REPUBLICANS generally think, not just conservatives, of whatever stripe.
” I see that your arguments are trending more republican than conservative.”
No, my arguments recognize the contours of the process. It would be great if the process were better. It isn’t. We’ll just have to deal with it. Doesn’t matter if we don’t like it. The rules are not going to change, at least not for this election, just because we think that they could be better.
“***I don’t know Hunter’s strategy.”
After yesterday’s press conference, I see no evidence that he has one.
“How’s Mr. Hunter currently polling in his home state? Has he broken 5%?
***I’m here in liberal Cahleeforneya. Remember Proposition 187? Remember how polls don’t mean much to Hunter supporters? How’s that Intrade dropout contract for Thompson in January and in February? Does it give you confidence? The cool thing about the Intrade stuff is, if it really gets under your skin you can actually go ahead and do something about it and if you’re right you would make money, maybe as soon as tomorrow. I can’t do much about polls in liberal Cahleeforneeya, as far as I can tell.”
Do you think that Mr. Hunter will win California? Break 5%?
Precisely what is the road to the nomination for Mr. Hunter if his highwater mark is 8% in Wyoming?
Hope isn’t a strategy.
“I don’t see that Mr. Hunter fits the Reagan mold at all. He isn’t a leader.
***Circular reasoning. You said before that you don’t think he’s a leader, so now he doesn’t fit the mold because he isn’t a leader in your estimation.”
No, that’s not circular reasoning. One of Mr. Reagan’s most important strengths was his leadership abilities. I don’t see those in Mr. Hunter. Why would I think that Mr. Hunter is “closer to the Reagan mold” when what I observe about him strikes me as un-Reagan-like?
“He doesn’t have the charisma, the communications skill, the easy affability of Mr. Reagan.
***Neither does Thompson. Romney and Huckster seem to have that covered.
“Mr. Reagan was successful in part because he was a brilliant politician. I won’t say that Mr. Thompson is a brilliant politician, nor a great communicator of the first order, nor the most charismatic man in politics today.
***Then by your own reasoning, Thompson does not fit the Reaganite mold.
“But he is a far better politician, far better communicator, and far more charismatic than Mr. Hunter.”
I never said that Mr. Thompson fits “the Reagan mold” well, only that he fits it better than Mr. Hunter.
Frankly, I don’t see any real inheritors of Ronald Reagan this time around (nor have I since Mr. Reagan left the office). When I made the comment about being a Reaganite, I wasn’t trying to suggest that one of the candidates reminded me of Ronald Reagan, but rather, like Ronald Reagan, I’ll take my salami in slices, if I can’t get the whole thing all at once.
None of these candidates represent (at least to me) much more than a handful of slices of the salami.
“but an entire bust as a presidential contender.
***Get back to us when Thompson drops out and endorses McCain.”
As you said, only one candidate will win. If it’s not Mr. Thompson, I imagine that he could drop out at some point in the future.
I don’t know whom he will endorse, although I’m not sure that it will be Mr. McCain, if for no other reason than that I’m not really sure that Mr. McCain’s candidacy will outlast Mr. Thompson’s.
“Most Thompson supporters on Free Republic will feel betrayed.”
Well, life is tough.
Endorsements don’t mean a whole bunch to me, except maybe in a reverse kind of way. National Review endorses Mitt Romney? Must be something WRONG with the National Review, not something RIGHT with Mr. Romney. Oh, well, just won’t renew my subscription in the spring.
“The ones who do not feel betrayed are the ones I worry the most about, because they’re republican operatives infiltrating Free Republic, not conservatives.”
LOL!! I’d be insulted if I didn’t think that this was such a stupid remark!
“Hunter’s support comes from those dedicated to the same idealogy, and they detect integrity in him. If he endorsed a RINO, we would feel betrayed. I do not detect the same level of commitment in Thompson supporters, they are in it for the political win, the same way aRINOld attracted so many GOP supporters.”
The problem is that you think everyone is working off the same premises as you are.
I don’t put a lot of value in endorsements. And I don’t view Mr. McCain as a “RINO” so much as I view him as a lunatic. Which is why I would prefer that he not become president. But I’ll take him over any Democrat.
Thompson supporters probably are more concerned about winning than Hunter supporters, in that we’ve selected a candidate with a reasonable chance of getting the nomination, and Hunter supporters have selected a candidate with virtually no chance of getting the nomination.
And probably a lot of the folks who supported Mr. Thompson, say, in August and who no longer support him probably are more concerned with winning than they are about principles.
But Mr. Thompson’s been through a tough time lately, and the fair weather friends have probably mostly left his side. Those of us who are left, most of us understand that there is a good chance our guy isn’t going to win. We stay with him because we think 1) he’d make a good president, a conservative president and 2) he still has a realistic chance of winning.
sitetest