Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CainConservative
Big difference.

Huckabee had some real issues with his (so called) Conservative credentials. Santorum does not.

I don't agree that the establishment Republicans tore Huckabee apart. If anyone was guilty of criticizing him, it was me and my fellow Conservatives.

Don't worry though, they will try and attack Santorum and Conservatism. While I admit Santorum wasn't my first choice in this election cycle, the fact that he is a “Right Wing” Conservative makes him appealing to me. I've always believed that if you have a Presidential candidate who is a true Conservative and can articulate the ideology, in most cases you have a winner. Newt articulates the ideology, yet his believability is questionable. Perry is Conservative on some issues, questionable on others, and doesn't have a track record of articulating anything well (this election). With Santorum (compared to the rest of the field), we have a Conservative who is intelligent, experienced, and can articulate. No guarantees, but he seems to be the logical choice.

19 posted on 01/02/2012 7:53:13 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Rational Thought
Huckabee had some real issues with his (so called) Conservative credentials. Santorum does not.

Not to promote one over the other, but Huckabee has some Charisma.

Santorum has NONE

21 posted on 01/02/2012 7:58:15 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Rational Thought
"With Santorum (compared to the rest of the field), we have a Conservative who is intelligent, experienced, and can articulate. No guarantees, but he seems to be the logical choice. "

I'm still 100% for Newt. But if Newt blows up, I would not be too unhappy with Santorum.

41 posted on 01/02/2012 8:52:41 PM PST by matthew fuller ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Rational Thought

Well since moderate McCain, conservative Huck, and fake conservative Romney were the final three last cycle, I guess you were most likely a Willard guy.

Or a McCain mushy moderate stooge.

Btw, I wrote in Mike Huckabee versus Obama.


42 posted on 01/02/2012 8:54:00 PM PST by CainConservative ( Newt/Rubio 2012 with Cain, Bolton, Santorum, Perry, Watts, Duncan, & Bachmann in Newt's Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Rational Thought
Huckabee had some real issues with his (so called) Conservative credentials.

Concur. He had (has) ties (still) to the Arkansas Stevens political machine that whelped Slick and Beast. In fact, I regard Huck as the Stevenses' double-down bet on a Republican resurgence -- their way to "win" if things turn GOP-ish in the country.

He also made a helluva mi casa, su casa speech to (I think it was) LULAC (or La Raza) in Little Rock in 2003 at their national convention there. He was allllll for immigrants then. And Bill Clinton was sitting on the dais behind him, as were no doubt the Tysons and Bo Pilgrim, too, who've been peopling their chicken-processing operations in Arkansas and Texas (say hello to Rick Perry) with illegal-immigrant Mexicans.

Huckabee's dubious on integrity and associations and a big negative on the illegal-immigration issue.

59 posted on 01/03/2012 3:22:25 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson