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.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

What your saying is true and wonderful in a perfect world. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts to nominate a true conservative, we may end up with Rudy or Romney or McCain. I don’t believe I would be violating any core principles by flipping the lever for one of them, distasteful as they may be, when the alternative is Hillary or Obama. Can you sit out the election knowing you might help to elect a democrat? Will you be okay with 2 or 3 Ruth Bader Ginsberg clones on the Court? With no response beyond arrest warrants if Al Quaida blows up the Sears Tower?

On a scale of 1 to 10, Thompson and Hunter might be 9’s or 10’s and Rudy/Romney/McCain might be a 4 or 5. But Hillary and Obama are big fat zeroes.

[dmw]

“You need to rework the poll to allow more than one selection and add the choice of, “Any of the selected is a deal breaker””

Yeah, I was looking for that option too.

[what's up]

Please correct me where I'm wrong.

You are not wrong that McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Etc. hold some liberal positions.

But if it's them against Her Heinous who is an out and out communist I'm voting for them.

(BTW, you forgot to list the candidates' Defense and WOT credentials which many consider the #1 issue.)

[processing please hold]

I haven’t voted yet. There needs to be a spot for “any of the above” is a deal breaker. A great FReeper just mentioned that on another thread.

[Jim Robinson]

Not at all. Just consider his actual record. Past deeds count more than current promises. The flip flopping and degree of spinning necessary to explain his new position generally decreases his trustworthy factor.

[processing please hold]

Many of us are looking for that option. I can’t vote until it’s there.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"If Fred had been in the Senate, we would have sided with John Kyle and McCain, both his friends, and shoved immigration amnesty down our throats."

No proof or evidence of that. Fred is from Nashville, and you can't turn your in any direction without seeing the problems these invaders have caused in our city. We scream for action here, and he would've done the right thing and stood against Shamnesty last year.

[tsowellfan]

That would be my #1.

It was my first

[tsowellfan]

Hunter/Thompson for me.

[vetvetdoug]

No faggots, enforce the borders, no gun control, no abortions, no tax and spend nanny staters, nobody from liberal states of Illinois, Massachusetts or New York.

[nicmarlo]

“Any of the selected is a deal breaker””

Agreed....that's what I was looking for, myself. : )

[mrsmel]

The Supreme Court vacancies are the only thing could that make me grudgingly think that I must hold my nose and vote for the R. Although even that's not a given(and look at some of the fine "conservative" justices we've gotten from Republican presidents, even when the President thought he was getting a conservative). But I will be in fear and trepidation for the rest of my life of going to hell for supporting a baby killer.

[PubliusMM]

Jim, thanks for the chart. Graphically displays what the true conservatives have been saying for weeks.
If the GOP is to survive as a conservative party, this is the way to do it...Thompson/Hunter; but they’ll need a boatload of help, and a lot of money.
I’d really like to see Fred put together two or three absolutely frantic days, just to help lay to rest that garbage about not having the stamina, not wanting the job, etc.
We don’t need a reluctant president. We need Fred’s bedrock, fundamental conservative prinicples, communicated eloquently and effectively, in many, many venues. And Duncan Hunter can be a very visible VP candidate, with the high energy we need to see.

We need strong leadership, up front and out there; making no apologies for the greatness of this country, and telling the world in the plainest terms that our borders will be secure, that our people will be protected to the greatest degree possible, and that we will continue to stand as the brightest light of freedom that ever has shone on the face of God’s Earth. No more PC crappola. Tolerance is one thing, appeasement and needless atonement for imagined wrongs will be stricken from the discussion.

It’s time. It’s time.

[processing please hold]

Welcome great FReeper. Have you voted yet? I haven’t.

[tsowellfan]

Hunter/Thompson for me. I would consider Giuliani or Romney 2nd tier.

McCain = No way

[what's up]

What would you suggest we should do if the nominee is Rudy or McCain or Romney? Vote for Hillary (or Obama)? Stay home?

Looks like most on this forum would not vote in the Presidential.

[nicmarlo]

Nope; I’m waiting to see if there becomes a “any one of the above is a deal breaker” choice. : )

[processing please hold]

Maybe we’ll get a new poll up. Otherwise, I’ve been disenfranchised! (isn’t that the phrase they use?) lololol

[Jim Robinson]

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.

[nicmarlo]

Maybe we’ll get a new poll up. Otherwise, I’ve been disenfranchised!

foflmao!