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.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

As far as I can tell, they all claim to be FOR strong national defense other than Paul. Left him off because he's an anti-war moonbat.

Paul wouldn't have any boxes checked, save perhaps the spinner box. And Paul's record is strong on national defense, but extremely weak on national offense.

[Jim Robinson]

The best defense is a strong offense. Paul is a loser.

[unspun]

And the dumping on Huckabee isn't campaign spin? Depends on which eye one reads with, I guess, but when I read true accounts that would be evidentiary in opposite directions, I see them tending to balance each other out.

BTW, I forgot to mention Thompson and I'd be confident McCain voting along with so many others for Title X funding of Planned Parenthood, something of the kind that would go on my list of reasons for armed revolt, if feasible.

But, I won't slam Thompson for it and I don't have any bug up my... nose against Thompson supporters. Good man on our side.

Funny thing is, I feel the same way about Mike Huckabee.

[Tenniel2]

Didn’t a bunch of people, some of them supposedly on our team, try that a couple of Novembers ago?

[LibLieSlayer]

If I did any more to keep huckster and mclame out it would either be immoral or illegal!

LLS

[Iscool]

In the Sunday debate, Thompson says, with a straight face, that we need to reduce future SS benefits and Mitt chimes in that we only need to reduce benefits for the rich.

I now recognize my problem...I don't make enough money to be a Republican...

So Thompson wants to drive the Republicans to Huckabee, or the Demorats, eh???

[JohnnyZ]

That's a pretty good chart and matches my choices well.

(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?

I have two absolute deal-killers of those listed:

Abortion/gays & Second Amendment

I can turn a blind eye and hold my nose on the others.

That's why I support Hunter & Thompson

That's why I could manage to vote for Huckabee & McCain in a general election

That's why I will never vote for Rudy or Romney in any election

[JohnnyZ]

If somebody is a flip flopper, isn’t it a little hard to also count his former positions against him?

If you're referring to Romney on abortion, even if you believe his supposed conversion he still supports gay rights and thus fails on that issue.

[xjcsa]

I’d include global warming alarmist in the mix. This fraudulent issue is being touted by at least 4 of the idiots. With Huck and McCain completely immersed in Gorgasms.

Bingo.

[xjcsa]

Phil Gramm and Jack Kemp are supporting McCain. You can say what you want about Jack Kemp now, but Gramm is certified conservative supply-sider.

And yet McCain clearly doesn't grasp even the basic concepts of supply-side economics, even while paying it lip service. How else to explain his strongly implied belief that the Bush tax cuts somehow decreased federal government revenue?

McCain's an idiot.

[FreedomProtector]

I don’t see a category for Iraq/Fundemental Islam... in which Hucklebee is definitely weak.

Your characterization of Huckabee being light on national defense/Islamic facism doesn’t match reality. Huckabee and Hunter where on the same page in every debate on that issue:

Video Huckabee: There is nothing funny about President Hillary Clinton/We cannot be soft we must be strong and defeat Islamic fascism

Huckabee mentioned Duncun Hunter for Secretary of Defence:‘‘What you do,’’ he [Huckabee]explained, 'is surround yourself with the best possible advice.’ The only name he [Huckabee] mentioned was Representative Duncan Hunter of California. ‘Duncan is extraordinarily well qualified to be secretary of Defense,’ he [Huckabee] said.

[xjcsa]

I voted for Fred, but you are definitely harder on Romney than I would be. His current position on abortion seems pretty solid, so I would think he’d get a ‘W’ there rather than an ‘X’. And he’s really gone after McCain on Campaign Finance Reform, so I’d give him a ‘-’ on that myself, although I know there have been comments from him in the past that could make that a ‘W’. I just think the ‘X’ is a bit harsh.

[johnny7]

Huckabee and Hunter where on the same page in every debate on that issue:

I go by his statements on record... not by the BS he slung in those “debates”. THAT... is reality.

[NavyCanDo]

I think the better way to ask this question is, out of the list of candidates, who as President would be most likely to advance these Liberal positions? McCain, Rudy, and Huckabee would clearly rise to the top of the list of those “I’m doing this for your own good” Presidents.

Thompson, Hunter and even Romney better understand the power of the conservative base and would do a good job if elected regardless of their past.

[trisham]

How many of you agree with unspun that Huckabee is NOT a tax and spend nanny stater?

******************

Not me. Imho, he's one of the worst candidates who ever had the gall to run as a Republican.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Se elect a person you positively hate or one you merely despise.

[JohnnyZ]

How many of you agree with unspun that Huckabee is NOT a tax and spend nanny stater?

Huckabee's running against the "nanny state" at present.

I think he's a populist who could go in a couple of directions.

[PhilCollins]

I agree. Huckabee’s literature states that he’s a fiscal conservative. It states:
“* Passed Arkansas’ first broad-based tax cut package and cut over 90 additional taxes — reducing taxes by almost $380 million for the people of Arkansas.
* Balanced the Arkansas state budget five times, eliminated the capital gains tax for the sale of a home, and indexed the state income tax to inflation to keep people from being forced into higher tax brackets.”

[Paraclete]

Assuming that tax policies implemented by a Governor in the context of a particular state’s needs, would be carried over to the federal level is a flawed assumption. I would be much more interested in understanding a candidates commitment to relieving the burden of government on individuals. In this regard, Huckabee’s tax proposal is worth a strong look.

Any candidates unwillingness to pursue massive changes in the status quo structure of the tax system tells me they aren’t really interested in getting government off the backs of people.

[trisham]

If by some bizarre turn of events, Huckabee is our nominee, I won’t vote for him.