Free Republic's (1/9) poll on Republican candidates' liberal positions that would be deal killers

Free Republic Poll ^ | 1/9/2008 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

(1/9) If the eventual Republican presidential nominee has a record including one or more of the following non-conservative positions, would you vote for him anyway or which item specifically would most likely be a deal killer?

• Abortion/gay rights

• Open borders/amnesty

• Gun grabber

• Tax & Spender

• Nanny stater

• Untrustworthy/flip flopper

• Anti-free speech

• Two or more could kill deal

• Three or more definitely kill deal

• I'll vote "R" regardless

Click on source link above to respond to the poll.

---

Three or more liberal positions on critical issues would definitely kill the deal in my book.

The way I see it:

X = Candidate holds or has record of non-conservative position. W = Weak or mixed positions.

Candidate	Abortion/ Gay Rights	Open Borders/ Amnesty	Gun Control	Tax and Spend	Nanny Stater	Untrustworthy Spinner Flip flopper	Campaign Finance Reform
Giuliani	X	X	X	-	-	X	X
Huckabee	-	X	-	X	X	X	W
Hunter	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
McCain	W	X	W	W	W	X	X
Romney	X	X	W	W	X	X	X
Thompson	-	-	-	-	-	-	X

Thompson and Hunter are most conservative, but I prefer Thompson because Hunter's going to have a tough time making himself known and jumping from the House to the Presidency.

Please correct me where I'm wrong.

[unspun]

Thanks for filling up our ping pages, but I know that Arkansas raised taxes numerous times, in addition to the tax cuts Huckabee pushed.

They were required by their constitution to balance their budget.

Much better than what happened in Illinois and Wisconsin, for example. Or, take a look at what has happened in virtually every other state.

[RebekahT]

And by the way, Huckabee’s answer for opposing the bill to deny illegals certain social welfare benefits is what he argued was redundant.

But opposing a bill requiring proof of citizenship is NOT on the books in Arkansas - therefore, not redundant.

And he SUPPORTED giving illegals driver’s licenses.

How can you explain that?

[mathurine]

I like Hunter, but I haven’t developed such a dislike for any of the rest of the Republicans mentioned yet as to contemplate not voting Republican no matter, considering the alternative.
That said, I don’t think the position on abortion actually matters. As long as the house and senate are closely split, the President has no real chance of changing anything, and as long as the President, if a Republican, doesn’t sell out via court appointments, that’s not a problem. The gay rights issue is more problematic because on that one the issue is blurry across party lines and what a president thinks probably would matter. I don’t see much movement on gun control regardless of election outcome.
The amnesty/immigration issue is a big one, and it is the one which should make quite a difference in the election outcome. Right now I don’t think most politicians have worked through their positions, nor the voters either, though they are clear on the fact that they don’t want so many illegals running around, and don’t want to give them anything.
Nanny State and Tax and Spend are big problems. The natural impulse of the congress is to lapse into both these modalities, and a president who is predisposed toward either or both could do a lot of damage.
I don’t elevate campaign finance reform to the pantheon level in my political thinking because I don’t think a president would devote much energy to that issue anyway.
The flip-flopping is annoying, but I am tolerant of it until the nominations are made. There are some issues that a candidate probably has not read or thought much about, and not many of them want to look dumb by answering that they don’t know or aren’t sure.
For me, the war on terror, dealing with islamic extremism, and absolute commitment to a strong military, and proper respect for and treatment of veterans is the elephant I expect to see in any candidate’s living room if he expects to get my vote. If he isn’t absolutely committed to that, forget him.

[Bob]

Aren’t Fred and Duncan polar opposites when it comes to trade with China?

You may be right. I'd have to check on that. On the other hand, I see them in agreement on so many key issues that a difference on one or two issues shouldn't be an absolute deal-breaker.

[lesser_satan]

If any of the positions are a deal breaker and you stay home, you are helping elect a rat who will bring *every one* of the dealbreakers with him or her.

If we vote for and elect one of the RINOs, we are demolishing the house that Reagan built. The Republican Party is a coalition. If we vote for Rudy we are throwing Social conservatives under the bus, if we vote for Huckabee we are throwing economic and national-security people under the bus, and if we vote for McCain we are throwing them all under the bus. If we throw any of them under the bus our coalition is shattered and we will be relegated to minority status for the foreseeable future. We may sqeak this one out, but for what?

So we can elect McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts, led the Gang of Fourteen along with his buddy Ted Kennedy in opposing conservative judicial appointments, would not authorize the torture of Islamonazi terrorists even if they had information that could save millions of American lives, and was a MAJOR sponsor of the Amnesty bill that everybody here fought hard to defeat last summer?

Or Huckabee, who helped the Mexican government build a consulate in Little Rock to give documents and services to illegal aliens, who wanted to extend state benefits to illegal aliens, who threatened to sue the Federal government over rules requiring states to verify the legal status of people applying for driver's licenses, who pardoned more criminals than all the neighboring states combined, who wants to close Guantanamo Bay to kiss ass to the rest of the world, who wants to apply the golden rule to Iran and North Korea, who called Bush's foreign policy "arrogant" and a "bunker mentality", who raised taxes by a net half-billion dollars, and who opposed Bush's veto of SCHIP?

Huckabee and McCain have all of Bush's worst attributes and none of his best, and I needn't mention Rudy, as you all know about him.

It would be FAR better to lose the election.

People like you were saying the same thing in '76 when Reagan challenged Ford in the primary. "HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE A FELLOW REPUBLICAN! Do your duty and line up behind the annoited one!" It cost us the election and gave us four years of the worst president in US history. But you know what else it got us? EIGHT years of the BEST President of the twentieth century, who brought an end to the economic blight of the '70s, ended the Soviet empire, and restored greatness to an America that was damaged almost beyond repair.

I choose to lose the battle but live to fight again if our choices are Rudy, Huckabee, or McCain.

I could possibly hold my nose and vote for Mitt (although his dirty tricks against Thompson, his flip-flopping on social issues, his gun-grabbing, and his health insurance mandate would make that very difficult for me), but I will NEVER vote for Huckabee, Rudy, or McCain. If any of those three receive the nomination I will vote third-party or write in Thompson-Hunter.

[nicmarlo]

lol....you can also do that by checking their posting history....it doesn’t take too much reading to figure it out. : )

However, it might a “fun” activity for those who think they’re conservative....perhaps they’ll be able reflect on how far they stray from conservative ideals. Instead of their being able to make it about personalities, they can measure themselves according to something in black and white. Removes the emotional baggage and they might be able to see just how far from the mark they really are.

[Jim Robinson]

He excluded himself as an anti-war moonbat.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

McCain: CFR, backstabber, and media darling...ABSOLUTE DEAL KILLER
Paul: Antiwar...ABSOLUTE DEAL KILLER
Tancredo: Militantly anti-immigrant (Miami comments)...Deal Killer
Hunter: Anti free trade (and tax and spend through more tariffs)...Deal Killer

That leaves:

Giuliani...Weak on guns, gay marriage, and property rights...Extremely Disturbing
Romney: Universal health care...Extremely Disturbing
Thompson: CFR love and no-show these years on the WOT...Extremely disturbing
Huckabee: Weak on crime, tax and spend...Extremely disturbing

That leaves me, at best, extremely disturbed. Run Jeb run! Will vote third party or write in Jeb if any of the first four are the nominee...will vote R and hope for at least a Nixon (with today's more protective media environment than Nixon never had) if any of the last four are the nominee.

[Harrius Magnus]

“CFR is crap but we’re stuck with it until the Supreme Court decides to overturn it”

Overturn it? Hell, they codified it.

[Bob]

Mccain as VP? Heaven help us then.

As I said, precluding him from being VP isn't necessarily a bad thing. I sure wouldn't want to see him in the top slot in any case.

[unspun]

It could be said that Ronald Reagan had quite significant failings in these categories:

1. Abortion/ Gay Rights (Sandra Day O’Connor)
2. Open Borders/ Amnesty
3. Tax and Spend (Spend and Spend)
4. Nanny Stater? (a “W?” — could have pushed harder, as government programs grew) I think some here would say so, anyway.
5. Flip flopper? (Troops into Lebannon; troops out of Lebanon, allowing Bin Laden to observe that we are “weak.”)

[txhurl]

It would be FAR better to lose the election.

If you want ALL the dealbreakers, go ahead.

[LibLieSlayer]

I agree... and at one time I thought that Free Republic was like Ivory Soap... 99 & 44/100% Pure... or in the case of Free Republic... Conservative. We have, it seems, a large contingent of moderate and liberal Republicans... with a sprinkling of outright socialists thrown into the mix.

LLS

[do the dhue]

I thought about it and here is my answer:

well I wont back down

no I wont back down

you can stand me up

at the gates of hell

but I wont back down

Gonna stand my ground

wont be turned around

and I'll keep this world from draggin me down

gonna stand my ground

and I wont back down

HEEY babe

there aint no easy way out

HEEY I

will stand my ground

and I wont back down

and I wont back down

no I wont back down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSRL87g6mKU#QAZti0O-_nI Johnny Cash

[Harrius Magnus]

“Hunter and Paul are the only ones who get 100% on this list.”

You noticed that too? Ah yes, correct on everything, except lacks the “trump card.” Not sufficient to just be a deal-breaker (like all the other candidates); he is a lunatic. Doesn’t make sense? Welcome to the New Republican Party.

[CAluvdubya]

Just to let you and everyone know...I just voted for Duncan Hunter! Man, did that feel good!

I'm a mail in voter (not by choice) so I voted and it's going back in the mail tomorrow!

HUNTER '08!

[LibLieSlayer]

“Uh, the party IS fractured. It’s falling apart at the seams. When the party no longer respects its own vaunted principles and or no longer represents the views of the majority of its base, then it’s all over but the crying. So I guess we agree on that. Either the members select a conservative nominee or forget about claiming to be a conservative party supporting life and liberty. Also forget about ever winning another election. That’s been my point for some time.”

Thank you for stating this as well as Rush has. We are damned lucky to have a leader on Free Republic like you. I ain’t kissin’ a$$ as someone will surely accuse me of doing... but you earned it and you deserve it.

LLS

[gitmo]

Do you believe Fred could honestly change his stance on this one issue? Do you think Mitt can honestly change his positions on the majority of the important Conservative issues? One seems far more likely to be true than the other.

I agree. My point is that Thompson and Hunter have the only decent records out there. Tancredo might have been as good, but he dropped out.

[grey_whiskers]

Jim, I couldn't have said it better than your analysis did.

Right now Fred is the closest, even though I disapprove of his working on McCain-Feingold and disagree with his stance on trade with China / globalism.

If someone else gets the nomination I might have to write in Fred anyway -- all of the other 'leading' candidates each have at least one "called third strike" red flag.

Cheers!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If I am going to participate as a Republican then I have committed to accept the party winner of the primaries.

This policy, of unthinking support for whatever is the decision of the party is known as 'Democratic Centralism', and is the organizing principle of Communist Parties around the world. Obviously we should give consideration to the wishes of our fellow Republicans, but we do not give up our minds or our consciences.