Posted on 01/09/2008 5:17:20 PM PST by 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?
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.
Of course, Romney was running for the Senate against Teddy Kennedy in the most Democrat state in the country. His call for both parties to work together without having winners and losers makes sense to me if I were running a campaign in MA as a Rep. I wonder how Romney feels today with 20-20 hindsight on the Contract with America.
I know that Maverick McCain has been working with the drunk from MA to push his agenda [and so did Bush for that matter on education], but I was unaware of the love affair between Romney and Kennedy. Since Kennedy is the most powerful political figure in MA, maybe Kennedy helped him out while Romney was governor. I believe that Kennedy supported Romney's health plan.
As far as McCain-Feingold is concerned, Thompson had a vote, Romney did not. The overwhelming majority of Reps in Congress were against the bill. And Bush signed it despite having reservations on its constitutionality. The Dems did not have enough votes to override a veto, so there is plenty of blame to go around.
I have been on the receiving end of many CODELs. I have not been impressed by the knowledge of most of the Congressmen about foreign affairs or the country they are visiting. Many don’t even read the briefing materials and are there to shop and see the sights [along with their wives and staffers.] I have never had a CODEL involving Fred, but I have seen McCain, Biden, and Dodd on the ground overseas.
The Contract With America is from 1994. It was a legislative document constructed from Reagan's leftover wish list and gave the new GOP majority a set of objectives to follow once they took control. Everything but terms limits was passed out of the House and roughly 65%-70% of the CWA was eventually signed into law by Clinton. The CWA was a snapshot in time and in this case can only be viewed in the context of its time. 20/20 hindsight is a copout.
Myth Romney opposed the CWA, just as he opposed the Reagan agenda of the 1980`s. Romney isn't a man of conviction or principle. Political expediency drives his politics, which is centrist-liberal at best.
“Assuming that tax policies implemented by a Governor in the context of a particular state’s needs”
Huckabee’s tax-and-spend soft-on-crime actions as Governor speak louder than words. He’s the most dishonest candidate on the campaign trail, and he sue has fooled a lot of folks with a song-and-dance that doesnt match his actual beliefs and governance.
“I would be much more interested in understanding a candidates commitment to relieving the burden of government on individuals.”
Huckabee has proposed massive increases in spending at the Federal levels, he wants 6% of GDP on defense and proposed no specific budget cuts at Federal level. He supports NCLB and a huge and *increased* Federal commitment on Education. He opposed Bush’s veto of the big-spending SCHIP bill the Pelosi Congress passed.
Of course, Huckabee has flipflopped on many issues. He refused to sign the no new taxes pledge and claimed it was worthless. Then I think he flipflopped and gave it a go.
“Any candidates unwillingness to pursue massive changes in the status quo structure “ ... of Government SPENDING will be inherently incapable of changing the tax system.
Thompson and Romney both has spoken about the need to limit spending and have made commitments to keep spending in check. Even McCain, bad on other issues, is good on that issue. But Huckabee’s record and rhetoric both are quite clear - he’s a big Govt candidate who will make Bush look far more disciplined on spending. It will destroy the GOP brand on fiscal discipline (whatever shred of credibility we have left, anyway).
Even more important is entitlement reform, and the one candidate taking the lead on that is Thompson.
On taxes, Romney has the right approach. He likes the idea of what the FAIR Tax embodies, yet sees winnable practical things that can and should be done NOW: make Bush cuts permanent, cut income taxes and corporate income taxe rates, fix AMT, move to consumption taxes, address trade imbalance.
Huckabee’s refusal to get behind practical things that could be done in the first 100 days of a new administration like Romney’s got will leave us with a status quo system, because it is quite obvious the Congress will never abolish the income tax in one shot. Huck is selling a pipe dream that doesnt match his tax-and-spend record while Romney and Thompson talk real policies and agenda.
Romney supported most of hte element of the contract with America in his 1994 run against Ted Kennedy. He was explicitly for Welfare Reform, cutting taxes, building up the military, getting tough on illegal immigration, and in favor of term limits and a balanced budget. So at least 8 or so items on the 10 point contract with America he was for.
The reason Romney did some of this shuffling around in running against Kennedy in 1994 was purely rhetorical and non-substantive. Kennedy wanted to peg Romney as a Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich clone and tie them together, and Romney’s distancing himself from these kinds of things was his way of saying that he’s his own man and not a ‘bot of Gingrich. That’s all it was.
Fred`s main effort in CFR was to eliminate the soft money made famous by the Clinton's and raise the limits on hard cash donations. The section that indexed contributions to inflation came about from Fred`s amendment. That increased donation limits from $1,000 to $2,000 --- $2300 today. Earlier this year Fred said the time may have come to lift all limits on political contributions, with immediate and full public disclosure on the internet.
The provision that limits issue ads 30-60 days before an election was the part that was the "big mistake". A provision Fred`s renounced. The same provision that was for all intents and purposes, shot down by the SCOTUS several times since its passage.
Until he started running for President, Mitt Romney had a long history of supporting campaign finance reform and restrictions even more stringent than McCain-Feingold legislation.
FACT: Romney SUPPORTED banning Political Action Committees
Romney SUPPORTED a ten percent tax on campaign contributions
Romney SUPPORTED capping campaign spending on congressional elections
Supported Banning PACs
“These kinds of associations between money and politics in my view are wrong. And for that reason, I would like to have campaign spending limits...I also would abolish PACS...I don’t like the influence of money, whether it’s business, labor or any other group, I do not like that kind of influence.” (Mitt Romney for Senate Press Conference Video 1994, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM0x8WnI4to)
Supported Taxing Campaign Contributions
“Massachusetts Romney called for spending limits on candidates and a 10 percent tax on campaign contributions for state elections to finance publicly funded campaigns.”(Editorial, “Campaign Finance Flip,” Washington Post, 5/26/07).
Supported Capping Spending on Congressional Elections
“Romney also said he advocates spending limits on congressional elections, even suggesting that the current race against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy should have a $6 million spending cap...” (Frank Phillips, “Romney, Vowing To Live It, Touts Congress Reform Plan,” The Boston Globe, 7/7/94)
When McCain Campaigned For Romney In 2002, Romney Praised McCain For Standing For “Reform And Change” Saying “Those Are My Values.”
“Romney also praised McCain for his general reform campaign when the Arizona senator came to Massachusetts to stump with Romney just before Romney’s 2002 election victory in the governor’s race. ‘He has always stood for reform and change. And he’s always fought the good battle, no matter what the odds,’ Romney said at the time. ‘Those are my values.’” (Eric Moskowitz, “Romney, McCain Spar On Campaign Finance,” Concord Monitor, 4/27/07)
In fact, Romney’s proposals were even more stringent than what was included in McCain’s legislation.
“Back then [since his days as a Senate and gubernatorial candidate in Massachusetts], Romney advocated more stringent measures than McCain-Feingold ultimately included, such as a spending limit for federal elections and a tax on political contributions.” (Eric Moskowitz, “Romney, McCain Spar On Campaign Finance,” Concord Monitor, 4/27/07)
As a cosnervative, Myth Romney is a phony and a fraud.
He’s a big government, northeast liberal who changes his politics to suit the office he’s running for.
No thanks.
Wow. Huckabee’s a flip-flopper and Romney isn’t? Things have sure gotten subjective around here.
“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.”
Nanny-stater: Clear yes. He’s for CO2 caps. A terrible idea. He’s for banning indoor smoking at the Federal level.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=11001078
Only he [Huckabee] and John McCain have endorsed the discredited cap-and-trade system to limit global-warming emissions that has proved a fiasco in Europe.
“It goes to the moral issue,” he told an admiring group of environmentalists this month. Alan Greenspan blasts cap-and-trade in his new book as not feasible, noting that “jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.” Mr. Huckabee defends his plan as an “innovative” way to attain complete energy independence from foreign oil by 2013.
“Of course, Romney was running for the Senate against Teddy Kennedy in the most Democrat state in the country. His call for both parties to work together without having winners and losers makes sense to me if I were running a campaign in MA as a Rep. I wonder how Romney feels today with 20-20 hindsight on the Contract with America.”
Even in 1994 he was running on positions that were 80% aligned with it. See my previous post.
The Mitt-bashers are attacked Romney for running the best campaign he could in that environment.
yes, Huckabee’s egregious flipflops on many issues and his obvious pandering make Romney look like a study in consistency and principle. it is pure subjectivism not to see that.
Huckabee is another Bill Clinton on so many levels.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010782
‘He’s just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,’ a former top Huckabee aide told me. ‘As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I’ll guarantee is that won’t lead to competent conservative governance.’”
Huckabee has shamelessly flip-flopped *midcampaign* on immigration, going from a McCainiac proamnesty to a -— I dont know what the heck he is for today, he’s all over the map ...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/the_huckabee_hustle.html
“But I wouldn’t prevail on Huck. This is the man who said that Arkansas needed to cherish diversity in culture and language. He’s the man who opposed a ban on providing state services to illegals and supported in-state college tuition rates for them He’s the man who criticized an Arkansas measure to require proof of citizenship to vote. Like President Bush, he’s a man who would compassionately conserve us into Mexico North.
But, much like Hillary and the flip-flop over drivers’ licenses for illegals, Huck sees the writing on the wall and now preaches holier doctrine. He has promised to complete a border fence and just released a plan mandating that illegals must return to their native lands to be considered for citizenship (this, too, is a form of amnesty, but Huck’s version of accountability). Yet, in this interview, he is clearly tepid about even the latter and seems to mock the idea of a border wall. What did he stress instead?
A path to citizenship.”
I am sure people like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, who have worked their hardest in the past few days to slap down Huckabee and McCain, must wonder why one of the most viable conservatives running has a truth file on this top conservative site and Huckabee, McCain, Hillary and Obama do not.
“Your characterization of Huckabee being light on national defense/Islamic facism doesn’t match reality.”
It is dead-on accurate. Huckabee is a LIGHTWEIGHT. Huck can score a few 30 second points in a debate but his POLICIES are Jimmy Carteresque and he’s been clueless on the topic - SERIOUSLY clueless. He bashed the Bush administration wrongly and needlessly, using words that Democrats use against Bush. He will be a disaster, and closing Gitmo and stopping waterboarding are bad policies.
He was clueless then lied about the NIE:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/31/huckabee-nie-again/
Then he said stuff so clueless and out-to-lunch one of his own advisors criticized it:
“”I tried to educate him . . . that this is a country run by megalomaniacs bent on an apocalyptic outcome, who believe that bringing about a world without America is their god-given obligation. [This is] not a prescription for a serious foreign policy, I’m afraid,” Gaffney on Huckabee’s nutty complaints about our lack of diplomatic relations with Iran
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/01/huckabee_criticized_on_foreign_policy_statements/
A leftie points out that Huckabee is basically saying what Obama says - scary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lionel-beehner/why-huckabees-foreign-po_b_77281.html
And then another review:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/12/huckabees_foreign_policy/
“On the down side, though, I’m not sure that a Huckabee foreign policy would be substantially different from an Obama, Richardson, or Edwards administration’s. There’s a bit too much moralizing about good guys and bad guys, as if something other than rational interest were at work, combined with more than a bit too much faith in the power of love in international relations.”
And he is shown the door by conservatives:
“This is the kernel of Huckabee’s foreign policy. He wants to anthropomorphize international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register the other day, “You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”
This is deeply naïve. Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and — as a last resort — violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S. president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.”
Huck is completely ignorant on foreign policy, and when he gabs about it, he sounds like Jimmy Carter. On this issue alone he should be completely and utterly disqualified as a Presidential candidate. American lives could be lost because of his lack of competence in this area.
In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
- According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
Payment for some abortions is mandated in every state in the union. It was the law before Mitt became governor and it will remain that way in Massachusetts even after Roe v Wade is overturned. Why?? Because THAT state's electorate will vote to keep abortions legal. Only a HLA would stop abortions in Masschusetts and that's why Mitt supports one. Only Huck, Mitt and McCain support the HLA.
When he left Congress, Fred’s adult daughter had just died.
He just didn’t have the heart for it any more.
Now, Fred is remarried with two young children under the age of 5. That makes all the difference in the world in wanting a better future for your children. His heart is full now, and he wants to make a difference again. He’s not in this for the glory and fame like the majority of the candidates. Fred’s in this BECAUSE THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE BEFORE THERE IS NO AMERICA LEFT IN THE FUTURE. Period.
Good question.
JimRob: Where is the HUCKABEE truth file and MCCAIN truth file?
“Mike Huckabee is not a conservative.” - Rush Limbaugh
A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people. Given how Americans have thrived on diversity — religious, ethnic, racial — it takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what Islamic terrorists are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it. If they are willing to kill their own children by letting them detonate suicide bombs, then they will also be willing to kill our children for their misguided cause. The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is “know your enemy,” and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick. Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, or the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad influenced Osama bin Laden and the rise of al Qaeda. Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore the “pure” Islam of the seventh century through a theocratic caliphate without national borders. He saw nothing decadent or sinful in murdering in order to achieve that end. America’s culture of life stands in stark contrast to the jihadists’ culture of death.
— Huckabee
The Bush administration plans to increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps by about 92,000 troops over the next five years. We can and must do this in two to three years. I recognize the challenges of increasing our enlistments without lowering standards and of expanding training facilities and personnel, and that is one of the reasons why we must increase our military budget. Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level.
—Huckabee
It is significant who Huckabee mentioned 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.
Good presidents delegate responsibilities and administrate, they do no think they can do it all themselves. I have confidence that Huckabee will surround himself with an exceptional foreign policy/defense cabinet.
Applause!!! Spot on, JimRob, spot on!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.