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.

[Bob]

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?

In this case, I don't think he really would. With one candidate refusing to support another, though, deals at the convention could get very tricky. My thought was that refusals to support each other shouldn't be done during the primary process.

[Reddy]

Wow. Depressing that with all the fine conservatives in this country we end up with 5 big losers for the nomination. :(

I will not vote for Guiliani no matter who he runs against.

I took the categories above and ranked them by seriousness of negativity (my order of most to least important issue). Abortion got a 7, gun control a 6, tax/spend a 5, open boarders a 4, CFR a 3, flipping 2 and nanny stater a one (I gave l/2 of the issue number for W-weak) Using that criteria, Romney was the most negative at 22.5, Guiliani is 22, McCain is l9.5, Huckabee is l3.5 and Thompson was a 3. Hunter, of course had no negative scoring.

So my method comes down to- if there is not a Hunter/Thompson, do I vote for Huck who scores negatively in things that are less important (in the scheme of this survey) like flip flopping and taxes but will uphold the RTBA and work to end abortion and homosexual marriage, or chose McCain who is for shamnesty and scores negatively on on CFR? (plus he’s just WEAK!!)

Arrgh! Help us, Lord!

[Perchant]

led the Gang of Fourteen along with his buddy Ted Kennedy in opposing conservative judicial appointments

Another thing about that, I'm not so sure that GW Bush didn't like the idea of this gang taking some of the pressure off him to elect a conservative. His choices might have ended up okay, but I'm not so sure that Bush wouldn't have wanted more liberal choices if he could get away with it.

If we consider that the "gang" might have been a Bush ploy to take the matter out of his hands, then the envoy chosen to be the go-between is important and a proxy member of the gang. That was Thompson.

Either way, it should be asked of Thompson during the debates if he thought McCain's undermining "gang" was a legitimate political ploy. Everything in these debates seems to be calculated towards preventing Thompson from mixing it up with McCain, though it should be the natural duty of the conservative in the field to destroy the rats.

[unspun]

Sure would be nice. When all is said and done, I think W. will have done pretty well by comparison to Reagan. (If we don't let him get any farther toward GloboMexiCanadization.)

See ya.

[processing please hold]

To quiet a few on here it doesn’t make a difference to them. Another - sigh.

[unspun]

...and if he is stopped from influencing Israel from caving in to "land for peace."

[nicmarlo]

I do not think that the Republican party is falling apart. It has always been fractious.

Tom DeLay Disses McCain, Calls New Hampshire Win ‘A Blip’

When asked about the divisions in the party between moderates and conservatives, DeLay said “I don’t think there’s a schism in the party. The party doesn’t exist. It’s rebuilding.”

I agree with DeLay on this. The "GOP" has a major problem, and appears to be on life support at the very least.

[Jet Jaguar]

Have a good night.

[LibLieSlayer]

Tank screwed the pooch with his endorsement though. Broke my heart. I still like him but question his choice.

LLS

[Jet Jaguar]

Agreed.

[nicmarlo]

I’ve noticed that, too.

good grief, yet again.

[LibLieSlayer]

Thank you!

LLS

[nicmarlo]

yw.

: )

[processing please hold]

I don’t even want to comprehend what it would be like on FR if Thompson drops out and backs McCain. It would probably be a once in a lifetime event to witness though.

[2nd amendment mama]

Fred is definitely hawkish to pursue the WOT! I just saw him in person (again) today and he spoke directly to this issue.

[RebekahT]

I understand your attraction to Huckabee. To an outsider, he seems like a great candidate. But his problem is that he isn’t a conservative in the true sense of the word. Huckabee has his own brand of political thought - sometimes conservative (life and 2nd Amendment) - sometimes populist (”let’s elect a guy that is like someone you work with instead of the guy who laid you off” - the government needs to control what people eat and if they can smoke on their own property) - and sometimes a weird Christian socialist blend (”compassion” for illegals, commuting criminals’ sentences without reading their confession or the DA’s casefile because he met them at the governor’s mansion or b/c their pastor said they’ve accepted Jesus into their heart).

Huckabee knows he has to run to the right to get the nomination and he’s a brilliant speaker - so he makes his new-found conservatism on illegal immigration and taxes seem so believable.

I’m going off of what I personally know of him (I’ve been a political activist in this state for years and know his children well) and his record. He’s vindictive to anyone (especially in his own party) that crosses him, while governor he got more liberal as time went on, and I don’t think he has a thorough understanding of foreign policy issues (his “bunker mentality” statement sounded like something from the DNC talking points and his lack of understanding about the legal implications of moving Club Gitmo to the USA was astounding).

I have some worries about Thompson’s electability at this point. However, if he delivers in SC, I think he’s home free because the South will get behind him. Regardless, in the PRIMARY, I have to vote for the candidate who best represents my values...and I’m a conservative first. Now is the time to vote for the best candidate, not the one who gives the best speech or is the most charismatic.

Huckabee is a dangerous candidate. His record was very liberal on most issues but now he’s run to the right...so who knows what he’d really do if he were president.

His lack of good judgment on crime in Arkansas is probably the most unbelievable thing about his record. His commutations and pardons are really unparalleled in this state and even on a national scale. Since he’s a blank slate on foreign policy (citing his extensive vacation destinations as proof of his experience in the last debate), I am left to think that he might conduct the War on Terror the same way he dealt with criminals - blind compassion, disregard to society’s well-being, and unleashing on anyone who dares to question his judgment.

Sorry to ramble...I really wish I could like Huckabee. He’s a fellow Christian from my homestate and I’ve personally known his family for the last ten years. But, when it comes to politics, I’m a conservative first...I can’t vote for or support anyone whose record is as liberal as his - despite what he may be saying on the campaign trail.

[processing please hold]

I hear ya.

[mrsmel]

That’s what I have always believed-that I must vote for a Republican no matter what, because at least there will be the influence of state and Congressional republicans to which they will have to answer. But now, with this particular bunch, I wonder (especially with McCain and Giuliani) if they’ll take their election as a “mandate” to enforce just what they say they stand for, and damn the rest of the party. That’s what they consider “leadership”—betrayal of any conservative principle, no matter how much it goes against the grain of the entire body of conservatives, if it’s their personal (liberal) axe to grind.

I really still don’t know. Right now, I can only cling to the (admittedly futile) hope that by some act of God, Hunter is the candidate. But I don’t think God would soil His hands with this bunch.

[Jim Robinson]

Huh? All the Republican candidates support a strong defense and national security, except Paul. And he’s automatically disqualified on that basis. FR supports the war and the troops and the military. Doesn’t need to be a column. It’s a given.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts

[mountainfolk]

Who do you think comprises ‘the party’? I am part of the process by the fact that I am participating in the selection of the candidate. Are you suggesting that there should be only one candidate? Unthinking is hardly the word to use in remarking on my post. Be assured that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a communist. LOL.