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.

[Eric Blair 2084]

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.

Well said. Conservatism is difficult. It requires serious thought from factions that seemingly have nothing in common on the surface other than a fear of history repeating itself...Gubmint to use their monopoly on raw naked force to crack down on whomever they please (whether it be religious folks, libertarian folks).

Leftists and progressives don't have that problem. They are just a ragtag collection of special interest groups looking for big government to cowtow to their agenda of control.

[nicmarlo]

Accurate analysis.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“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.”

Yeah - Rudy Tooty Rino is a GOPer - but Paul isn’t? Sheesh.

The only candidates I could vote for with a clear conscience are Hunter, Fred, and Paul. I’m not 100% with any of them but they are the only ones with integrity who represent most of my values.

I’ll pull the lever for Hunter on Super Tuesday here in AZ if he’s in it still - if not it’s a tossup between Thompson and Paul for me.

[unspun]

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?

I explain that as a part of the "globalism is good" stupidity that was going on with "new-Whigs," liberals, and libertarians alike, in the times before the big American boot came down, in 2007. And yes, it still is alive, but at least Huckabee is aiming toward more nationalism now, and making a big point of national sovereignty (fence, LAWS, etc.). The pressure must be kept up on all these guys. And I mean all.

I'm not saying Mike Huckabee is perfect. Far from it. I would tend to even agree with Joe Scarborough's appraisal. But like Joe, I'm leaning hard Huckabee's way, compared to the other candidates who have a chance of winning.

I understand Fred Thompson has a chance -- until SC anyway -- but I believe his chance of gaining us a General Election victory are the slimmest but for Duncan Hunter's chances.

[Jet Jaguar]

I am just trying to put out to the public what is available.

I am not a fan of his answers regarding taxes, immigration and
nanny stater.

He was a large man. He got smart. He exercised and dieted.
He used to eat like a horse and rest like a sloth.

It was his choice. He could eat or drink what he wanted.

He did. Then he changed and set self limits.

He then put limits on the rest of the state.

Taxes on tobacco and alcohol, and gasoline, and general purchases, and chewing tobacco, and rolling papers, and amusement parks, and drivers licenses, and diesel gas, and beer, and motor vehicle registrations, etc, Should I go on?

He was the Governor! He can shape policy or change it.

He agreed to it. He worked so many small taxes in while in charge.

How many have been repealed? How many by him? He ended up with a surplus. What taxes have been cut?

[Kevmo]

I haven’t seen that movie.

If Fred drops out, it looks like he’ll endorse McCain. How would Freeper conservatives feel about that?

If Hunter drops out, he’ll most likely endorse Fred.

If Hunter drops, then Fred drops, we will all be pissed if the first scenario comes true.

[unspun]

He agreed to it. He worked so many small taxes in while in charge.

I repeat: He had to balance the budget and with a Democrat legislature, handle the huge "social safety net" shift from the feds to the states.

Believe me, that (along with corruption) blew up the Illinois and Wisconsin GOP'ers.

[LibLieSlayer]

huckster was interviewed by Hannity last Friday and Sean hammered him on his raising of taxes. You can go to Hannity’s site and read the transcript for yourself. Sean finally got fed up with huck spinning and quoted the largest daily Newspaper in Arkansas... Sean said the paper accused huck of raising taxes by 550 million dollars. huck said he cut taxes in a state that had never seen a tax cut. Sean pointed out that huck had indeed cut taxes by 280 million dollars... but that he had raised taxes by 550 million dollars. huck spun and Sean asked him again if these figures were correct... huckster, being cornered said, “I believe those figures to be correct”. Boy, for self professed Christian Soldiers for huck... your team certainly lies a lot... and twists the truth so far as to appear to be a lie.

LLS

[processing please hold]

I don't dislike Thompson, I just won't vote for him. Any member of CFR is immediately scratched off my list.

I believe Thompson also supported the Lautenberg bill.

Abortion is murdering the most helpless. It's an abomination as is gay marriage.

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.

Which is why I support Hunter. Those are his issues as well.

All one needs to do is find the candidate that most closely fits their own ideas and beliefs. I found that in Hunter.

[Kevmo]

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.
***See post #197 for a suggestion on what Free Republic can do about that.

[processing please hold]

This is just mho, but if Fred’s a conservative and McCain’s a liberal, why would Fred want him on the same ticket with him?

[unspun]

ibid.

This thread as pertains unspun is getting redundant. Time to do other things.

Any readers: please see prior posts.

[Harrius Magnus]

I've been amazed at the protests. It is too much (if you catch my drift, Fonzie). It is a sub-genotype of the BDS virus that moonbats get: Mention Paul and mild-mannered conservatives get Bats in their Belfry. Just wait, a sputterer will come along... Good luck to you.

[LadyPilgrim]

Thank you for this list Jim. Every R voter needs to see this.

[pay dirt]

I think the War on Terror could have been a column.

Gee, ya think?!!! I couldn't believe it either when the WOT, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't even an option! That speaks VOLUMES about what the agenda on this forum is. It's all social issues, our military and the future of the U.S. be damned. Our troops thank you....NOT!@#$W%"!$&*)#@$) I can't even believe that someone didn't BUMP your post. What'd they do....read it, and just pass on by?

[nicmarlo]

I don't dislike Thompson, I just won't vote for him. Any member of CFR is immediately scratched off my list.

That's how I stand, as well.

[mountainfolk]

It seems to me that if the majority of the base was conservative, then their positions would already dominate and there would be no need for XXX grading. I do not think that the Republican party is falling apart. It has always been fractious. Last time around I liked Steve Forbes and before that it was Pete DuPont. I am more than pleased with the final result of George Bush. In the long run, we can only do our best in whatever role we play in the political process to protect America.

[Jet Jaguar]

Reagan was a good man.

Some compare him to a god.

I do not. He could have done a lot better.

I do not want another Reagan, I want better.

I think it can happen.

[what's up]

he was not interested in dealing with the day-to-day bull$hit in DC anymore.

LOL! Then why is he running for President?

[LibLieSlayer]

“They were required by their constitution to balance their budget.”

A prime example of huckster taking the LIBERAL form of governing by raising taxes to balance the budget. Reagan taught us that TAX CUTS stimulate growth and raise TAX revenues. Kennedy also knew this... and Bush has proved it once again. You skewered your man with his own liberal actions... and his administration was full of liberal actions... and you reference one of the prime proofs of his liberalism... inadvertently put forth by one of his best disciples on FR.

LLS