Posted on 01/13/2008 1:01:49 PM PST by TornadoAlley3
How about a dose of reality? There’s not a perfect candidate out there. If we want to be honest, Huck/Fred/Romney/McCain/et.al all have baggage when it comes to our definition of the perfect “conservative.” I think there’s legitimate questions that Huckabee raises about the GOP mainstream. I want to believe that an idealistic RR would have raised many of the same questions. But we’ll never really know.
One thing I’ll bet my life on. What many people around here want’ to espouse as “conservative” is going nowhere with the electorate. I see many of Huck’s ideals following the pattern of Teddy Roosevelt. And I don’t have much doubt TR would be run out of here on a rail.
But then I ask, was TR’s “trust busting” government intervention or conservatism at it’s best? How about a federal land grab of millions upon millions of acres for National Forests and Parks? I don’t know about you, but I’m glad they’re there for my children and grandchildren.
The point is, new times call for new solutions.
After all TR made Mt. Rushmore with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln (with as RR always joked, a little space for him)
Am I suggesting Huckabee comes anywhere close? Nope. But I’m perturbed by some of the absolute close-mindedness I see around here these days.
Except I had to personally live with Carter’s 14% interest.
Got the reference I see....
Used to be, now with Huckabee and McCain, I can’t say for sure what I will do in the general if one of them gets the nomination.
So Thompson's going to govern as a liberal because he showed some loyalty to his mentor almost 30 years ago? You guys have some bizarre "logic" going on here.
But then I guess we could conclude that he’ll let personal relationships take precedence over his principles.
Huckabee didn’t respond much during the debate
symptoms of wimpification.
Besides that, Howard Baker was Thompson's MENTOR. How much of an ingrate would Thompson have to be to work against his mentor in a primary?
Where the hell did that come from? Criticize all you want. I was merely pointing out that Fred did nothing surprising in supporting the Pubbies incumbent President in 1976 or in supporting his fellow Tennessean in 1980.
“However, the deification of Fred on FR is laughable”
Tsk tsk...You oughta know FReepers by now...It’s “Guilty until proven Conservative”...
Fred has proven he is a true conservative and that’s why we support him...I haven’t heard anything like Glory to Fred
but i have heard words of a hot place for Huck...
I've long said I could never vote for mclame; I now add the huckabilly to that statement.
It's a real dilemma that I'm not sure past candidates presented to the same degree.
So it was impossible for someone in 1980 to support Howard Baker without compromising their principles? And it's an issue worth discussing 28 years later? Ridiculous.
If it’s not dead, it seems to be having a masochistic fit leading to the amputation of major limbs.
His fellow Tennessean was pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, and helped to give away the Panama canal.
See #178
Howard Baker stood on conservative principles and was a good man.
Fred in ‘08
Is that why Fred has more endorsements from pro-life groups than the Huckster?
It’s what you do, not who you know, right? Am I missing something in trying to apply the FredHead’s criteria for measuring someone’s conservative credentials?
Actually, I don’t disagree with your statement at all. The arguments being applied to Huck are often just as convoluted.
Don’t believe the Huckster. He’s dishonest! Plus he doesn’t have any common sense! Both good reasons to forget about him. He’s a pro-life, pro-gun lie-beral. To me, it would be more correct to say Huckleberry is a moral lie-beral, if there is such a thing.
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.