Posted on 01/10/2008 1:11:53 AM PST by Kevmo
Now I know how Reagan felt. Thanks for the bump on this vanity thread.
This is what I was referring to in my post above - having the other candidates defend Hunter's right to be included!
It would be great if Michael Reagan, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Terry Anderson...and all of the so-called conservative talking heads and pundits would speak out about this atrocity.
Sorry, Jim, but I think the stakes are too high this time
***We just had one of those stakes stab the republic in the back. You’re so blinded by your hopes for your own candidate that you cannot see the tragedy that has occurred for conservatism, our republic, and our country. You are a RINO.
to afford daliances with third parties or sitting out the election.
***Baloney. Either the GOP wakes up or it participates in its own destruction. Remember what happened to the Whigs — their contingent of moral compromisers wouldn’t go along with the socon wing at the time over the most pressing moral issue of the day, and the republican party was borne out of it. Most americans don’t know who the whigs were, but they know who the republicans are.
We help elect a Republican president and then hold him accountable. It just might save the Republic.
***Look at how that approach worked with aRINOld. Did conservatism win? NO. It will take a decade to rebuild the California GOP after this guy is done doing his damage. The same could happen on a national scale if we do not nominate a true conservative. Shutting out the truest conservative from debates is absolutely contrary to your own goals, but you don’t care because your own guy wasn’t affected ... yet.
remembering Reagan’s principled and passioned defense of opponent John B. Anderson to be included in a 1980 Debate?
***Thank you for that reminder. True conservatives would be up in arms. Where are they? Isn’t Free Republic supposed to be the bastion of true conservatism?
That’s pretty much what another freeper said, and where I got this paragraph for my post, which you evidently didn’t read:
For the Republican side, half right is more than half wrong when you’re relying on the data to exclude someone from the process of democracy. And if they were wrong, how do we know they were right on the republican side? The prevailing assumption should be that they need to PROVE their data is reliable, but by excluding a candidate that could have done well in that state if he had access to the media, they AFFECTED THE OUTCOME.
Now I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but the man is a Republican candidate with a national following. He deserves a chance to speak. So does Duncan Hunter. Why should they have to pay for press when some get it for free (that’s what a debate is, free press).
***Exactly.
Ask yourself how that happened. Huckabee had almost no money, couldn’t pay to run ads, and suddenly he gets all sorts of positive press.
***I think Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
If Huckabee fizzles, his followers will be looking for another prolife evangelical to fill the void. Hunter fits that bill, no one else in the race is evangelical. The GOP doesn’t get it. They need to let this faction find a home. The amount of invective aimed at evangelicals is surprising, but then everyone wants their votes. Prolife evangelicals will be very comfortable in Hunter’s camp, since he’s a prolife evangelical staunch conservative.
Fred is out there slogging away on a daily basis, yet he gets almost no positive press.
***What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We Hunter supporters were saying for a long time that he was being shut out from the media. Now we have more than solid evidence of it. Once they take down Hunter, Thompson is next. And if you look up the origin of that expression for goose sauce, you’ll see it applies exactly here, with Team Fred practically gloating that their guy isn’t being made into sauce.
Are we at the point in American politics where only candidates with personal fortunes or media darlings have a chance? I’m sorry to say, that’s the way it seems to me. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s a thing I can do about it other than to vote my principles regardless of what the media pundits or polls say.
***I’m pretty sure there’s plenty that could be done, but the reason why Freepers aren’t up in arms over this is because it hasn’t affected their guy. Yet. When it does happen to their guy, don’t come crying to Team Hunter for help if Team Fred doesn’t help now. I detect a distinct lack of conservatism in Team Fred, and a distinct taste of republicanism.
Interesting thread ping.
“That’s entirely inaccurate, we all know the Dems tried to enforce a withdrawal.”
Yep they put up a token attempt, and then gave up.
Every election cycle the true believers from both parties trot out the old “Vote For Us Or It Will Be The End Of The World As We Know It” It was BS then and it’s BS now. All that’s done is to dilute the conservative influence within the GOP.
What I want to ask such people is, how could any of you believe that Romney would go back on his word on social issues?
***Because he’s flipflopped on social issues in the past, and being president offers more temptation to flipflop, not less.
Or on immigration, or pretty much any core issues for the GOP, that he proclaimed support for in the primary?
***Hunter’s criticism of Thompson and Romney over this issue is well aimed. We need someone in the white house who isn’t a johnny-come-lately on this issue.
Road to Des Moines Conversions on Immigration (Hunter Press release)
News Which Cannot Lose ^ | 10/25/07 | Duncan Hunter/staff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1916889/posts
If you’re looking for a candidate the GOP can coalesce around, then check out the latest poll on FR, and see which candidate has the least amount of X’s in his column. Mitt has too many X’s for most conservatives.
Free Republic’s (1/9) poll on Republican candidates’ liberal positions that would be deal killers
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=210;results=1
thread discussion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951136/posts
it would ruin his Presidency, and his hopes for re-election.
***Yes, it would ruin his presidency, and we all see it, which is why I don’t support him. I support the guy who would make the best president. You’re talking about his hopes for re-election when you should be talking about how he is compelled to be conservative in THIS election cycle. Once a compromising conservative is re-elected, he starts to show his true colors.
How could any conservative be foolish enough to take his word to begin with?
We are engaged in a cultural war both within our party and with the Dems.
***This part of what you say is true, and it pretty much negates almost everything else you’ve posted so far on this thread.
75% won’t vote R regardless. :)
***False dilemma, a classic fallacy. The fact that even more than 1% of freepers chose that as an option is a VERY telling indicator of the level of conservatism on this website.
If this information has been posted before, then I apologize.
According to the rules of the South Carolina State Election Commission to qualify to be on the primary ballot in S.C. -
* you must pay a fee of $25,000.00
* file the required paperwork.
Nothing else is required, such as a specified number of signatures from registered voters.
DUNCAN HUNTER paid his $35,000.00 and filed the required paperwork, and will therefore, be on the primary ballot in SC.
Interesting tidbit...
South Carolina charges each candidate on the ballot $25,000.00
The republicans charge their candidates $35,000.00
The Republican Party then uses the additional $10,000.00 any way they choose.
The democrats charge their candidates $2,500.00
The Democrat Party pay the difference, $22,500.00 for their candidates.
The way I see it, Duncan Hunter gave $10,000.00 of his limited resources to help HIS party exclude him.
BTW, the SC GOP don't give a rip how we feel about Hunter's exclusion.
Nice to have the votes, but if they aren’t that picky, then let us have a Conservative, for once, as a candidate.
***Excellent point. And a great overall post. Thanks.
Why? because it doesn’t matter how pretty or slick they are, to Conservatives, the issues matter. There are some things we just won’t vote for, and if there is nothing to vote against (I.E. no difference between the candidates on the issues) we just might go fishing.
***Here’s what most social conservatives don’t realize: That large percentage of UIN republicans likes to say, “I like __such & such conservative___, but” or “I’m a conservative, but”. This is the new set of talking points for people who are trying to pass themselves off as conservatives, but in the end, after going round & round with them, they are not conservative. We saw that on the bugzapper thread, and there are still plenty of these folks around, affecting the discourse of conservatism when in reality they are AGAINST CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. If they read JimRob’s definition of conservative and are honest about applying it to themselves, they have to gulp because they know that it isn’t true. An Idealogy indicator on the home pages would just save all of us a ton of time. That hiding behind terms to appear conservative is what’s wasting our time.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Bears repeating
I miss 1998, when people around here had balls.
***So do I. Even when I call their brand “courage-free conservatism” it is more of a PC term than what you say. Dang, your short sentence is almost tagline worthy.
Better yet, ask yourself why, when only 3 candidates had actual points on the primary scoreboard resulting from the WY primary, (Iowa does not put points on the board) 1 of those 3 was excluded from the two alleged debates last week-end, while 3 others with big fat 0s were included.
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.