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]

You look at total tax burden not state tax burden so it doesnt look so bad due to Bush tax cuts that Huckabee had nothing to do with! If you look at state tax burden alone, it went up BIGTIME under Huckabee - up 50% in 10 years.

That, as I've stated before is, thematic (endemic?) to Illinois, Wisconsin -- and what little I've read of Massachussetts and Michigan, thanks to the elections -- and just about every state I've heard of, lately.

The federal government could afford to lower taxes, due in part to welfare reform and unfunded mandates. (Shifting of the "social safety net" to the states.) Commensurately, the states had a much greater burden.

I'm not saying that Huckabee is Calvin Coolidge. I'm saying that I don't necessarily see him as Walter Mondale, either.

[higgmeister]

Additionally, keeping with the traditional custom of selecting a VP nominee from another geographic area to secure a broader base of support, I believe Thompson must choose Hunter as his running mate.

[ellery]

Correction: Thompson did not vote for amnesty for Central American illegal immigrants.

In 1996 Thompson voted for the toughest illegal immigration enforcement bill that arose during his tenure in the Senate.

The amendment that Numbers USA mistakenly characterized as amnesty was the Mack Amendment, passed in 1997 as a clarification to the tough 1996 bill.

The reason for the Mack amendment: the Reagan administration, and then later the Bush administration in a class action suit (American Baptist Churches et al. v. Thornburgh) made agreements with illigal immigrants who fled our wars against communism in central and south America; these agreements laid out the conditions under which these particular illegal immigrants could apply to have their deportations suspended.

The 1996 law rightfully toughened the criteria by which illegal aliens could have their deportations suspended. The Mack amendment simply clarified that the particular illegal aliens who were subject to the class action agreements made by Reagan and HW Bush, and whose deportation cases were already in the pipeline when the new law was enacted in 1996, would have their deportation cases heard under the old rules.

In other words, the amendment did not automatically grant them citizenship or allow them to stay - all it did was cancel out a retroactive change in the agreements for those whose cases were already under consideration. Any illegal immigrants, even from these classes, whose cases were not already in the pipeline at the time of the 1996 immigration bill enactment would have to submit to the new, tougher rules.

Here is the link to the vote - 99 senators agreed to it, including Sessions and Thompson:

-----

Switching gears, you mentioned the huge surplus that existed in Arkansas at the end of Huckabee's term. Respectfully, I am surprised when Huck's supporters tout this as a plus. The 'toon also had big surpluses at the end of his term, for the same reason that Huck did: because they were taxing us too heavily and taking much more than they could justify.

It's all very well that as Huckabee was leaving office he "recommended" that the money be returned to the taxpayers. But he didn't accrue that money over his last year in office -- if he were serious about returning that money, he would and should have done something about it as soon as it became clear that the government had raised taxes far too much.

[fieldmarshaldj]

5 years ? 5 months maybe, 1 year, even 2, but not 5. After all, it was 4 years between Dr. Coburn’s departure from the House until he ran for the Senate. That’s a good enough period of time.

As I said, CFR was about cleaning up corruption. I didn’t agree with the legislation, but at least he was trying to find a solution.

[WOSG]

Romney is prolife (but you can mark him W) and has been consistently against gay marriage, more strongly than McCain who voted against FMA. Dont mark Romney as bad as Rudy on social issues when he clearly is not. Huckabee is a much bigger spender than Romney.

Result: Romney scores a 9, better than all but Thomson and Hunter.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I am relieved to hear that you would be more merciful to minorities than were the Nazis.

The question was is there any policies a party could take that you would not scruple to support. You haven't commented on this point, which leaves the possibility that you would do anything the party supports, without limit.

I do not have the health or finances to run for President, but since you ask about my conservative credentials, I will list a few:

Young Americans for Freedom (1962-1975);
Youth for Goldwater, state Board of Directors;
Reagan for president Volunteer, 1968. 1976. 1980, 1984;
Sandman for Governor Organizational Director 1973
College Republican State Vice Chairman, 1976
Obenshain for Senate Research Staff 1976

[ellery]

Great analysis!

I might consider an X under “nannystater” for Giuliani — in NYC he pushed anti-smoking laws, cracked down on dancing in bars, fought vehemently against people being allowed to keep ferrets as pets, yadda yadda.

[WOSG]

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

There is a McCain/Huckabee amnesty express that the moderates and MSM have gotten ready. If you cant see the train coming ... it will flatten you soon.

Tancredo wisely saw it coming and did what he could to stop.

.... are you doing all YOU can to stop the McCain/Huckabee amnesty express????

[BillyBoy]

>> Please correct me where I'm wrong. <<

My take on how the candidates should rank on this chart's criteria:

Abortion/ Gay Rights:
THOMPSON -- Should rank a "W" here, as he is one of the few GOP presidential candidates who publically opposes a marriage protection amendment, placing him to the left on President Bush on the issue (and Bush has never been solid on the pro-family stuff to begin with, but has stood firm on the federal government affirming marriage must be between one man and one woman). The fact that Fred answered a "Tennessans for Choice" questionaire in 1996 and seemed okay with the status quo on Roe v. Wade, along with the fact his law firm did work for Planned Parenthood, also raises doubts. Finally we have Thompson's extreme relunctant on the Human Life Amendment, which every Republican nominee since Reagan has whole-heartedily embraced. When pried on the issue, Fred seemed to concede he was okay with the platform continuing to push for a human life amendment, but that he will not do so himself. Nevertheless, we do have a fairly good pro-life voting record from Fred, somewhere in the range of 85-90%, according to pro-life groups (he did cast a few votes that can be arguing as helping the pro-abortion side). I personally conclude Fred will sign pro-life legislation as President if it reaches his desk, but take a "hands off" approach and not actively work for the repeal of abortion on demand. After 35 years of abortion on demand, we can't afford a "hands off" mildly pro-life approach.

McCAIN -- I'm not sure. His record is pretty close to Fred's, though I've never heard anyone accuse McCain of being a closet pro-choicer, except perhaps maybe Alan Keyes. But I believe that unlike Fred, McCain has never run a campaign with the concept that he doesn't want the federal govenrment eliminating abortion or that he is okay with the status quo. I'ds say McCan is a "W" or " -", depending on what kind of rating he gets from RTL groups.

ROMNEY -- A "W" for Weak or Mixed Position. He's run as Pro-Choice in the past but (unlike Giuliani) never as a rabid pro-abortionist, so I'd say that places him above a "X" rating that Rudy would get. He personally went for the "hands off", don't change any abortion laws in Mass (either to ease or restrict abortion access). and maintain the status quo, simular to what Thompson advocated (but ulimately didn't vote that way) in 1996.

PAUL -- You never ranked him. I'd say he's acceptable on this issue but like Fred Thompson, seems reluntant to have the feds do the right thing. But I don't think he's ever seemed okay with Roe v. Wade or had Planned Parenthood clients. Probably an " - "

Open Borders/ Amnesty
EVERYONE except Hunter (and Tancredo if he was still in the race) should at least get a "W" here, as they all currently claim to be for securing the borders and "against" all amnesty, but every single one of them has flirted with amnesty proposals in the past and supported legislation that can be argued was benefictifical for illegals. This includes FRED THOMPSON, who voted in favor of one of the "mini-amnesties" of the 1990s as described by Michelle Malkin. In Fred's case, it was legislation to grant legal status to over 900,000 illegal Nicargians (and their families) who met the "right" conditions. Fred also voted in favor of lifting higher fines on illegal aliens, against a voluntary workplace verfication system to check social security numbers (Fred's always been weak on employer emforcement), and earned a lifetime "D" rating on Preventing Illegal alien amnesties. He continued to flirt with mini-amnesties as recently as last year, on Hannity and Colmes. HUCKABEE is also a mixed bag, he supports in-state tuition for illlegal aliens and the Mexican consultant, but he earned excellent ratings from immigration groups on the bill he signed in Arksasas to prevent illegal aliens from receiving driver's licenses, and has a sound immigration proposal now that has been uniformed welcomed by anti-illegal immigration groups (in many areas, his proposals are rated even higher than Fred's), even earning an endorsement from Jim Gilchrist. GIULIANI and McCAIN should probably get an "X" in this category, as I have a hard time locating any time they've been right on illegal immigraiton in the past, except meaningless rhetoric they spout in debates about being "against" amnesty.

Gun Control
I would probably agree with your ratings here, though McCAIN, THOMPSON, and ROMNEY are hard to rank, as their overall career record on guns is pretty good, but you could probably point to a handful of legislative initatives that the gun-rights absoluteists would say is completely unacceptable. Depends on what freepers consider no-compromise legislation. For the purists, only HUCKABEE, HUNTER, and PAUL would be "acceptable" no compromise perfectionists

Tax and Spend
HUCKABEE is a "W", he did raise sales tax by 1/8th of a cent and support some bad spending bills, but he balenced the budget and brought Arkansas from a $200 million deficit from a $800 million surplus. When he left office, the state was in pretty good shape (unlike say, Arnie in California, who deseves an X+++) He also cut taxes in sevearl areas. Huckabee's tax reform and anti-IRS idea platform wasn't invented overnight, and has won strong backing from the FairTax crowd.

McCAIN & THOMPSON -- Their voting records are about 95% alike, so aside from McCain's original nay vote on the Bush Tax Cuts, they should be simularly ranked here as well. McCain's record on fighting pork-barrel spending has been excellent, aside from his nay vote on the tax cuts, I'd say he has been pretty good on opposing tax increases. I'd have to research Fred's record a bit more on issue -- he was in the Senate when federal spending went through the roof, and I don't know if he signed onto all those awful federal budgets that Bush gleefully signed. If he did, he's a "W", if not, he and McCain should both be a " - "

PAUL -- Again, if we rank all the GOP candidates, Paul gets a " - " here. Great record, better than anyone.

Nanny Stater
This shouldn't even be a category, IMO. It's not an "issue", it's a vague soundbite like "Candidate of Change" and "Globalist" used by certain candidates to puff themselves up or attack others. This is mainly used as a generic "Huckabee is a RINO" talking point, and without defying what a "Nanny state" is (if it's enacting anti-smoking or drinking laws, for instance, solidly conservative Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is a "Nanny stater" for supporting zero tolerance drinking laws for people 18-20, and so is Ronald Reagan for removing smoking areas from the White House in 1987). If it comes to overall use of big government to regulate people's lives or create social programs, HUCKABEE is very conservative compared to people like John F. Kennedy or French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who regularly receive worship on this forum. Define "Nanny State" and I will tell you how the GOP candidates rank.

Untrustworthy Spinner/Flip flopper
Again, this is more of an attack-dog line than an actual "issue" (makes as much sence as rating the candidates for being a "Neo-Con" and giving everyone failing ratings except Ron Paul, or listing "True Christian Values" and giving everyone an "F" except Huckabee). Neverthless, I would say again, everyone at least gets a "W" in this catgory except Hunter. ROMNEY gets a "X" here for sure, as he seems to have completely re-invented himself. HUCKABEE and FRED THOMPSON have flipped just as much, both hold the same positions they did in office for about 80% of the issues, but have done a complete 180 turn on one or two issues that is of major importance to conservative.

Campaign Finance Reform
I assume you mean "McCain-Feingold", as Campaign Finance "reform" isn't bad, but McCain's idea of what to do to enact "reform" sure is. HUCKABEE should be a " -" on this issue, as he has never supported anything like that on the state or federal level. I agree with your rating on THOMPSON, as his 11th hour concession that McCain-Feingold didn't work out the way he hoped ignores the fact he still supports the underlying principles of the legislation and was singing the praises of it a few monthes ago. War on Terror
Not listed in your ratings, but one of THE most important issues, IMO. I believe you agree with me on this, as this is one the reasons the otherwise conservative Ron Paul is an unacceptable nominee. Certainly the WOT is more important than CFR or "Nanny State" to me, and ranks up there with immigration and the inherit right to life.

======================================================

When I study the various candidates on the conservative key issue of abortion, gun rights, family values, tax reform, immigration, and the WOT, I find Hunter to be far and away the best candidate, followed by Huckabee. But realistically, the only one of those two has a shot at being nominated for POTUS is Huckabee.

[pay dirt]

Ah, then your comment was meant for someone else. While I have your ear, so to speak, if your son or daughter was serving in the military right this moment and you had to choose between the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate, which would you choose? I’ve heard some people say they wouldn’t vote at all, or they’d vote third party, or write-in another candidate of their choice. Of course I’ve only heard that on forums, not in real life, so alot of that talk is just broo-haha, chest thumpin’ kind of talk. I can’t fathom that anyone who loves our military and this country as much as I do being able to do such a thing....let the Dem’s win and the country be damned.

[ellery]

Oops! Here is the link to the Mack amendment vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00269

[WOSG]

It’s a great table but we should consider that there is more to a candidate than their position on issues.
Their experience; their leadership skills; their capability.

Unlike a legislative position where they just vote on things, and positions are paramount in judging, a president hires, fires, and manages a $2.6 trillion budget.

Good voters consider their character, temperment, leadership and ability to articulate and make things happen when choosing a President.

[Jim Robinson]

I’ve spent the last year or so working to make sure we don’t have to make that choice. And I will continue fighting for a conservative nominee through the primaries and the convention. If we’re stuck with Rudy or some other godforsaken liberal RINO, then God help us all.

[unspun]

I’m certainly not referring to illegal immigration when I refer to “social safety net.” As for illegal immigration, I have looked into Huckabee’s plan, from his Web site.

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1951136%2C300

Similarly, I have read Huckabee’s very strongly principled position on nominating only originalist, (no penumbra here) justices.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=28

As to helping to convice Americans what way is up, culturally, I am referring to what he is saying and what he is committing to. It seems you haven’t been hearing what he is saying.

RebekahT, thanks again for your notes — what you have not related (yet, anyway) is that Huckabee has a propensity for reneging on very concretely and principally stated commitments to the voters.

---

Here is Huckabee on the federal judiciary (not just the SCOTUS). Not only is the commitment there. So is the plea of heart, reason of mind, and so needed instruction of principle:

Judges

One of the greatest ongoing threats to our constitutional republic is the ever-increasing politicization of the federal judiciary. Instead of interpreting the law according to its plain or original meaning, many judges are using the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress as a mere pretense for imposing their policy preferences on the American people. This is unacceptable. The role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench; and as president, I will only appoint men and women who share this view.

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.” The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat. The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution come from “We the People,” and judges have no right to prohibit the people from passing democratically-enacted laws unless we have explicitly authorized them to do so. Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on “evolving standards of decency,” penumbras, or any other judicial fiction, is antithetical to the rule of law, and must be forcefully challenged.

As president, I will appoint justices and judges who not only share my judicial philosophy ( e.g., Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito), but who also have established themselves within the conservative legal community as faithful adherents of originalism and textualism. The stakes are simply too high to do otherwise.

Finally, I wholeheartedly believe “that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be”; and I will do everything in my power as president to promote these cherished principles.

[FreedomProtector]

I agree with your assesment in post #154

Huckabee has been mischaracterized.

Article from American Spectator agress as well:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12549
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950669/posts?page=1#1

Speech writer for Ronald Reagan, Steven W. Mosher agrees as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1940652/posts?page=1
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23998

...but Huckabee’s commitment to low taxes and limited government is constantly questioned, even though he has signed a no-tax-increase pledge and-alone among the candidates — is vigorously campaigning to abolish the IRS.

I have lived in several different states (Pacific Northwest/Mid West/East) and areas in the country, and I currently reside in the South. Where I live in North Carolina every time items like increased funding for roads, parks etc come up in elections, they pass overwhelming (80%+) where they didn't in other parts of the country where I have lived, while the state votes overwhelming Republican in national elections. My guess is part of the reason my be a lower percentage of state GDP spent on these types of items in the South...etc. I image Arkansas isn't much different in this respect from North Carolina, and not supporting some increased spending on roads/parks etc would have been political suicide. Huckabee was also working with a Democrat legislature in a state with a balanced budget amendment. Ronald Reagan could be mischaracterized as a heavy spender as well with the Democrat congress he had to work with, but he clearly wasn't. Anyways, I think part of the mischaracterization is due to regional differences.

An income tax and a property tax is not voluntary. A sales tax is. The income tax was originally unconstitutional. Taxing work is evil. Eliminating the income tax is the antithesis of socialism/communism.

There are several things I would like to do at night to earn extra income. Every time I look at how much I would get taxed given the tax rate I am pushed into with my day job, I say its really not worth worth it. Eliminating the income tax would make me more productive.

[WOSG]

Tax and Spend

HUCKABEE IS A BIG FAT X ON THIS. He is a tax-and-spender and his 10 year record as Governor is ample ample evidence of this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950905/posts?page=17#17
* Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism.[5]
* He supported an internet sales tax in 2001.[6]
* He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002.[7]
* He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003)[8], and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001.[9]
* He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements.[10]
* He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003.[11]
* In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law.[12]

“McCAIN — I’m not sure. His record is pretty close to Fred’s, though I’ve never heard anyone accuse McCain of being a closet pro-choicer,” McCain approved of Roe v Wade back in the late 1990s. He flipped for this election.

[ellery]

It seems to me that the issue of leadership is addressed in part under the “untrustworthy spinner/flip flopper” category.

Beyond that, I think the table addresses the most important issue of *where* these candidates are likely to lead us.

[Jim Robinson]

Yeah, but if he’s a cross-dressing, gun grabbing, abortion/gay rights activist, open borders type guy, then that pretty much rules out his qualifications based on character, temperament and leadership now doesn’t it. I mean, unless that’s where you want to be led.

[WOSG]

You are falling for a shuck-and-jive act on Huckabee’s tax and spend record.

Review the facts on what spending drove Arkansas to raise taxes and you will find that it was Tax Hike Mike Huckabee’s ArKids program that was repsonsible as much as anything else, not roads:

“Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation.[38] The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure,[39] and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform.[40] The massive increase in government spending is due in part to the number of new programs and expansion of already existing programs initiated by Governor Huckabee, including ARKids First, a multimillion-dollar government program to provide health coverage for thousands of Arkansas’ children.[41]”

See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950905/posts?page=17#17

[RebekahT]

He ran (for governor) as a conservative but governed as a liberal. If you want to believe everything he puts on his website about where he stands on the issues, I won’t be able to change your mind.

I, as a conservative first, cannot support someone with a record as liberal as his, regardless what he says during the GOP primary.