Replies

Dear Kevmo,

“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

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.
***That’s my subtle way of saying that you value republicanism over conservatism, whereas this website values conservatism over republicanism. In the past, Freepers would have been all over you once they detected this about you, but Free Republic has changed. It might be time for JimRob to update his blurb on the front page because it seems to have been dampened in the quest to support electable candidates, such as what happened with aRINOld.

Kevmo: ” I see that your arguments are trending more republican than conservative.”
SiteTest: No, my arguments recognize the contours of the process.
***That’s a wonderful, beautiful obfuscation. Much too sophisticated for a Navy Guy.

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 do think we could be better. I’m disappointed in Free Republic.

After yesterday’s press conference, I see no evidence that he has one [strategy].
***I detect that his strategy was disrupted when he wasn’t invited to debates in New Hampshire. He crashed a Chris Matthews TV show and said about the same sort of things I would have said in the same situation. So he’s probably in the midst of forming a new strategy. He’s a Ranger, so he won’t give up, and he’ll look to leverage the resources available to him.

Do you think that Mr. Hunter will win California? Break 5%?
***This is basically the same question. Hunter will do in California as well as Prop 187 did.

Precisely what is the road to the nomination for Mr. Hunter if his highwater mark is 8% in Wyoming?
***Why are you asking me his strategy? I already said I don’t know his strategy. I detected some of it, but he doesn’t call me up in the middle of the night to discuss strategy. If his highwater mark IS 8% in Wyoming then there aren’t a lot of strategic moves remaining, I’ll grant you that.

Hope isn’t a strategy.
***I agree. But you might want to read up on Gideon.

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.
***I see absolutely NO leadership abilities in Thompson. He had a shot at taking down the Clintons and he wussed out. He dropped out of politics to go to Hollywood. His greatest accomplishment as a senator was to help usher in the CFR travesty, and he’s been distancing himself from it ever since. He has alienated the evangelical faction. I don’t see leadership in Thompson. He likes to play tough characters on TV but in reality he’s a marshmallow; Hunter is the real deal.

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?
***I see why now. It’s because you’re a centrist and Thompson agrees with your idealogy more. The same thing happened once we finally got down to brass tacks with the rudybots — they basically agreed with Rudy. From there, they started seeing all kinds of leadership qualities and Reagan mold stuff. Maybe this kind of discussion is useless as a result.

I never said that Mr. Thompson fits “the Reagan mold” well, only that he fits it better than Mr. Hunter.
***And, we’ve already covered this. Thompson fails because he’s not committed to the core principles. Federalism for abortion? Who would push for such a thing for baby killing? NO ONE. Thompson’s starting point is at least half a step behind Reagan and he never catches up. Hunter’s starting point is stronger on pro-life than Reagan was.

None of these candidates represent (at least to me) much more than a handful of slices of the salami.
***That’s why you like Thompson. He fits your idealogy closer and then you start seeing leadership qualities after that. Best of luck.

“Most Thompson supporters on Free Republic will feel betrayed [if Thompson endorses McCain].”
Well, life is tough.
***I agree. Thanks for being so honest about where you’re coming from. There’s a possibility that you represent a large contingent of Thompson supporters, but judging from the fact that you’re the first one I’ve run across saying the stuff you do, I kinda doubt it. Here on Free Republic, Thompson is the candidate du jour because he’s conservative enough, and has good name recognition. But once his conservative credentials are debunked by his own actions [such as, if he were to endorse McCain], his support will evaporate on Free Republic. Beyond that, since I’m a conservative, I guess I really don’t pay much attention to what kind of support a candidate has — I can tell he ain’t for me.

Kevmo: “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.”
SiteTest: LOL!! I’d be insulted if I didn’t think that this was such a stupid remark!
***Good enough, then. You might want to check in with your fellow freeper Thompson supporters and see who would feel betrayed if he endorsed McCain. Every single one of those that would feel betrayed is a Hunter supporter struggling to break free, just needs a little courage.

Kevmo: 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.”
SiteTest: Thompson supporters probably are more concerned about winning than Hunter supporters, in that we’ve selected a candidate....
***So I say they’re in it for the win, and your counterargument is to say they’re in it for the win. Same argument we heard from aRINOld supporters. Did conservatism win? NO.

with a reasonable chance of getting the nomination, and Hunter supporters have selected a candidate with virtually no chance of getting the nomination.
***I would disagree with the chances you cite.

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.
***Very interesting supposition. There may be something there. I’ll have to think about it.

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.
***You’re kind of all over the map on this. You say “Thompson supporters probably are more concerned about winning than Hunter supporters,” and then you say this. If there isn’t a good chance your guy is going to win, you might as well pick the most conservative candidate in the race.

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.
***OK, so both of us have a conservative candidate, and both of us think he has a realistic chance of winning. Both of us think McCain, Huckabee, and others are going to drop out. My focus on the PLEVs leads me to believe they would settle on Hunter, as a form of identity politics, i.e. the average evangelical says, “I’m a PLEV and so is he, so I’ll vote for him, even though I like Huckabee better.” I agree that McCain’s support would probably land on Thompson. Both sides dislike tootyfruityrudy, so there’s no problem there. What this amounts to is the conservative Prolife Evangelical versus non-evangelical tension. You keep saying things like, “Well, that’s how things are”. And with identity politics, the PLEVs will go with a PLEV candidate — that’s how things are.