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]

I’m wary too.

As for “base,” I don’t see it as a religious issue (and I know Baptists!). Vote on who sweeps the kitchen and you’ll get an argument.

Between Hunter and Huckabee (and Baptist, McCain) and all the other candidates — it’s about what they are bringing to the TV, etc.

[ThreeYearLurker]

SC is coming up soon enough. As long as the Dems wont be settled soon, we can wait this out a bit. Fred is in good position to absorb $$$$ as soon as he pulls clear.

[what's up]

As I said, CFR was about cleaning up corruption.

Nonsense! It adds to corruption because it inhibits free speech. Terrible, anti-American legislation.

A big, black mark against Fred. But I will vote for him or any other Repub who wins the nomination.

[FreedomProtector]

Your post is informative.

I agree with you, to give Huckabee an X on taxes and spending is way off base.

[CindyDawg]

Business meetings can get scary:’) This was a big concern though.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I said why Fred supported it was about cleaning up corruption. It ultimately was bad legislation, no doubt about it. He at least has conceded it hasn’t worked.

[maui_hawaii]

I think too many people believe their own propaganda.

They entice themselves to believe things that are not true generally in hopes to promote someone else.

IE One guy will play up and exaggerate the opponents positions (and in some cases downright not tell the truth), and when it comes to their own guy he can do no wrong.

For example, Romney is not and has not ever been for gay marriage. By the rationale of some freepers, we should have weekly meetings condemning Richard Nixon. Why? Because he was the President when Roe V Wade was decided upon.

People are measuring with one yard stick one candidate and with a different one for another.

If you are not equally bashing Nixon over believing in and being an abortionist SOB, then you have no intellectual right to say the same thing about Romney and Gay marriage.

As for gay rights in general gay people have the right to life libery and the pursuit of happiness. This is in the consitution. They should not be beaten up around the corner and have to fear. That being said, they do not deserve special rights.

What they are doing is wrong. It is immorral, but it would be even more immoral and unconstitutional to condone violence against them. That is two ends of the spectrum and Romeny (and my position) falls in between the two of that they have the right to live in America in peace, but that they do not get special treatment and when it comes to marriage the dividing line falls clearly in favor of traditional marriage. While we do not persecute people, we also do not endorse what they do for a whole litnay of reasons.

Secondly, how did you conclude open borders and amnesty for Romney?

Thirdly, you said Romney has a weak position on gun control. Given I will concede a little ground on that.

Forthly, how did you derive a weak position on taxing and spending? Romeny is the most fiscally conservative one of the whole lot.

Nanny Stater/Untrustworthy... both of these are subjective arguments. Part of the untrustworthy part is that people make up their minds then try to sink the other guy. Just like above with gay marriage...people hear only what they want to hear and ignore the rest.

As for the nanny state bit, I assume you are talking about the health insurance plan. The way I see it the government is already a nanny state period. The government is already paying for those too lazy or unwilling to pay for themselves. This is the defacto fact. People are simply living off the dole in regards to health care. It is a defacto dole, but the net result is the same. However you look at it, those costs come from my pocket.

If Romney or anyone else can figure out a way to force the populace to take personal responsibility I will support it. yes I said force the populace. As conservatives we have zero problem forcing welfare recipients to work for welfare. If that is the case then why don't we have zero problems forcing the equivalent of welfare recipients that are abusing the system to work for healthcare?

When you make judgements on health care without basis really I say you are throwing conservative principles out the window and hence I do not trust your judgement. We have fought tooth and nail to get work welfare programs to be institutued simply through government fiat. Why can we not do the same thing with the same principles for those who abuse health care?

Personally this is exactly why I say you have personally thrown your conservative principles out the window when you bash locally produced health care ideas.

[wastedpotential]

Not a bad rendering, but I think that evangelicals will find far more fault with McCain than Thompson, only because he called them “agents of intolerance” in 2000.

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

Agree on Global Warming.

If you include that in “nanny-statism,” though, you’ve then got to give McCain a big, fat “X” instead of a W.

Other than that though....great matrix. Thanks for posting, Jim!

Hank

[WOSG]

I am suggesting to consider them both.

There are good leaders on the Democrat side ... for leading us off a cliff. Neither of us want it.

But if we put up a poor candidate who is not a real leader, is not competent, or lacks other qualities needed in a President, they will lose to Hillary and/or hurt us down the road.

Example: Huckabee’s ethical issues and is very questionable and foolish statements on foreign policy will get him sliced and diced in the election; nominating Huckabee will be a big setback for conservatives for those reasons as well as because he’s a non-conservative on economic/fiscal issues.

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

Gramm is my political hero and I was terribly disappointed to hear that he supports McCain. They’re close friends though (by all accounts they were about the only friends each had in the Senater), so I chalked it up to that.

Hank

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

Gramm is my political hero and I was terribly disappointed to hear that he supports McCain. They’re close friends though (by all accounts they were about the only friends each had in the Senater), so I chalked it up to that.

Hank

[Politicalmom]

Romney is NOT more fiscally conservative than FRed Thompson.

[Ol' Sparky]

One thing not measured by your chart, is the issues of judges. And, other than Hunter the candidate I was absolutely trust the most to nominate judges is Huckabee, even more so than Thompson. There is no doubt in my mind Huckabee would aggressive push for judges opposed to Roe and thus in the Scalia/Thomas mold.

[BillyBoy]

Your post ignores the facts posted in #357, which points out numerous times where Huckabee took the conservative position on taxes and spending as Governor (not to mention the fact Huckabee left Arkansas in much beter shape than say, what Arnie did to California or Bob Taft did to Ohio)

Since there can can be numerous examples for and against Huckabee on taxes and spending, he ends up having a mixed bag on this issue.

If McCain was okay with the status quo on abortion in the late 90s (I haven't seen any evidence of this, and it would seem odd in light of the fact he ran as a stauch pro-lifer in the 80s and was endorsed by Reagan), it would be little different than Fred bluntly saying we shouldn't "criminilize" abortiion in 1994, and the infamous Tennesseans for Choice questionnaire filled out by Fred in 1996 where said the government should not ban abortion, expressed support for the public financing of abortions in specific cases, and (as if that wasn’t enough), stated that he voted to provide funding for the infamous Title X family planning programs.

[unspun]

WOSG, anyone,

Please thoroughly relate the record of any governor of more than four years, in a state with an average or greater degree of poverty, who has an excellent rating in “tax and spend” in the years beginning with 1998.

[WOSG]

Huck is a flexible guy. He’d jump on either Rudy/Huck or a McCain/Huck bandwagon. But last Saturday’s debate had an interesting interchange that made clear the McCain/Huck double team was in play.

“At least this latest anti-Huckabee attack is not as funny as freepers ranting and raving that Huckabee was a “compassionate conservative Bush clone who will govern exactly the way Bush does” one week and then screaming that Huckabee was a “Democrat taking pot shots at our President and trying to undermine his agenda” the next week.”

Actually, both comments made sense, since in both cases the context has been that Huck supports big Govt.

When Bush is a big-spending ‘compassionate conservative’ implementing NCLB and doubling the Dept of Ed, Huckabee the tax-and-spender is right there for him. That’s one reason Huck got the NEA endorsement.
When Bush finally finds a veto pen in his desk and (gasp) actually vetoes the Pelosi schip spending bill, Huckabee is the one candidate who cant bring himself to support the President on it. Shameful.

Huckabee doesnt have a fiscal conservative bone in his body.

“I suppose next week we’ll be hearing Huckabee isn’t religious enough.” - I find his lack of ethics, his record of ethics violations in Arkansas and ability to engage in Clintonesque dissembling so easily quite disconcerting considering his claims to be Christian. He seems to abuse the term a bit.

[BillyBoy]

>> I think that evangelicals will find far more fault with McCain than Thompson, only because he called them “agents of intolerance” in 2000. <<

Thompson was endorsing McCain for President at the time and continuing to loyally stand by him when McCain made those comments.

[unspun]

Thanks.

[WOSG]

“Romney is NOT more fiscally conservative than FRed Thompson.”

I’d agree, Thompson has the best record, but Romney is very solid there and miles ahead of Huckabee who is the worst of the litter on the whole topic of fiscal and economic conservatism.