Posted on 11/02/2007 6:19:48 PM PDT by dano1
There really are no perfect candidates. However some people are concluding that Huckabee may be the best alternative from among the GOP front-runners.
Yes, I’ve had a problem with some (not all) FredHeads bashing Mitt and going overboard on other candidates too. He’s got some star-struck support. let’s just let things play out. Fred either has it or he doesn’t, and if freepers cant see reality, just wait, it will catch up eventually.
Right now, it’s down to 2-3 viable candidates, Mitt, Rudy, and Fred. I frankly don’t think Fred has it in him to defeat Rudy, so I am leaning towards Mitt.
“Freepers who complain about the rise of Huckabee have only their candidates to blame. “ There is truth to that, but the complaint is not that Huckster has some strengths, its that he has weaknesses that make him too flawed a candidate to consider. Tax-and-spenders need not apply in 2008! We’ve had enough of that already. I frankly find him worse than McCain, which for me is quite hard to imagine!
Whereas Huckabee probably said quote #2, but campaigned on quote #1 (ran as an unapolegetically pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, Christian traditionalist in a heavy Dem state after Arkansas had spent 16 years electing RATs who opposed those policies -- And Huck won on principle)
What a candidate does is more important than what he claims to be for. Huckabee says he's against amnesty but in all honesty I don't trust him not to cave and sign on amnesty bill (of course, I don't trust Fred Thompson on amnesty either) IF Romney had been a steady reliable vote for pro-life and pro-gun policies while in office, he'd have my support today.
Also, although Romney has a lot of strong points and abilities, I don't think he is a natural politician in terms of communication skills.
Good post, and I agree with your conclusions but I would much rather see them applied to a “dark horse” like Duncan Hunter than an open-borders, tax-raising socialist like Huckabee.
Quote #1 is tagg Romney, Mitt’s son.
Quote #2 is from a Rudy rep. evin Cramer, spokesman for Giuliani
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/11/telling-comment.html
“IF Romney had been a steady reliable vote for pro-life and pro-gun policies while in office, he’d have my support today.”
Mitt Romney’s gun bills signed were all NRA-supported.
In office, he did multiple pro-life things.
If the election was held today, I'd vote for Huckabee for the reason you just said. There are no candidates left who are across-the-board reliable conservatives except Tancredo and Hunter, and as things stand, neither one has any chance of winning the Presidency. People don't go from straight from U.S. Congresssman to the oval office in one big leap.
The remaining candidates all have leaky boats. On the BIG issues:
* Giulaini is bad on EVERYTHING except the WOT
* McCain is bad on immigration, free speech, tough policies on terrorists, biting the hand that feeds him (conservative base), loyality to the President, ANWR, global warming, and tax relief.
* Romney is bad on holding consistant views on ALL major conservative policies, FairTax, health care, global warming, and assalt weapons ban.
* Fred is bad on reliable policy on stopping illegal immigration, reliable support for FairTax, global warming, free speech, traditional family, marriage protection amendment, sucking up to McCain, and passion for pro-life policies.
* Huckabee is bad on reliable policy on stopping illegal immigration, holding the line on taxes, and global warming.
From my perspective, Huckabee has the least leaky boat. Certainly his actions as President to fight for pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, and overhaul of the tax code will be better than Frudy McRomneyson's more laid back approach to those issues. The rest won't use the bully pulpit to fight for that stuff and instead just wait for it to come to their desk.
As a non-smoker, Huckabee's record on cigarettes is a minor issue that has no affect on me, disagree with it as I may. There are "true conservatives" who have far worse "nanny state policies" on zero tolerance alcahol laws (see former Congressman Dan Schaffer), yet they enjoy a broad base of support here.
If things keep going the way they are, Fred Thompson will be the "Wesley Clark" of this year's election cycle (not that Fred is an insane lunatic like Clark, but that both FDT and Clark were overhyped as the dream candidate that would easily win the nomination, unite the base and get swing votes due to their "celebrity" status and destroy the other party. Then they belatedly entered the race in Sept. after a "grassroots draft", didn't show any saavy on the campaign trail, and their campaigns ultimately went nowhere)
The general election is the time to be "pragmatic" and vote for the most "electable" candidate, the primary election is the time to vote for the candidate who will make the best leader. Mitt shows some very good buisness skills like his organization of the Salt Lake City olympics but his achivements as Gov. of a RAT state compared to Huckabee's skills as Governor of a RAT state are no match (see any "Choose Life" plates in Mass? Huckabee got that bill based by a RAT controlled legislature). Ususally the best candidate doesn't make it, but who knows, Huckabee could get lucky and pull a "hail mary pass.
My conclusions are that I'll take my chances on a long-shot nominee who could theoretically win, but not on a vaniety candidate who has virtually no chance to win.
I had my picture taken with Duncan Hunter at the Ames Iowa Straw Poll. I love the guy's record and his principled leadership. I love everything he stands for. I'd like to see him as the next Governor of California. But the fact is that he came in 9th place during that poll, working his butt off to campaign and losing to candidate's who weren't even running and didn't lift a finger to campaign. People ridiculed what a poor candiate Tommy Thompson was, but the fact is even Tommy got 10 times the votes that Hunter got.
If Hunter can make a dent in the polls to show even a glimmer of hope that he could win a state, let alone the GOP nomination, I'll take a very serious look at voting for him. But until then, voting for Hunter because I agree with him on every issue make as much sense as casting a write-in vote for Ronald Reagan. Both would have about the same effect on the nomination process.
One of the problems is just as Huckabee is hurting Fred and Mitt, Tancredo is getting much of the "reliable solid conservative" base that Hunter is targeting. If Hunter can't get above 7th or 8th place by the time the real Iowa caucus rolls around in Jan., he really needs to drop out an throw his support to Tancredo.
A big issue here is that Congressmen simply don't win the Presidency. The last one to do so was James Garfield in 1880, and he was technically Senator-elect at the time.
You may disagree with Huckabee's fiscal record, but he's still much better than any of the other front runners. It reminds me of the 1998 election where I had my choice between a pro-abortion, pro-gay, gun-grabbing, tax-and-spend RINO and a pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, tax-and-spend Democrat, or a third guy polling 2%.
I held my nose and voted for the pro-life and pro-gun, tax-hiking Dem. And in hindsight, most conservaties in Illinois now realize they should have done the same.
Oh c’mon; lighten up. But, I’ll answer your question, since you asked: “Why the front tooth comment?”
As I said, a PR man told me that in politics, unseemly physical features can cause a loss of 4-5 percentage points. In this day and age, that’s a whole heck of a lot.
Sad to say but we live in a day when people, in public life, need to put their best foot forward, even in appearance. It’s not like the guy doesn’t have the money for some cosmetic dental work. It would help people not look at him as an Arkansas Redneck; and Rednecks with bad teeth are prevalent Redneck jokes.
Now, climb down off your “holier than thou” soap box. You make yourself look stupid.
Well, I see you were on a roll last night. Great style points, but lacking in substance. Please address the criticisms of Mike...
*Horrible record on fiscal issues
*Open border amnesty supporter
*Global Warming kool aid drinker
*Nanny state smoker banner
Thank you.
Don’t try to go up against me on Precious Willard. I’ll chew you up to pieces, bud.
Let's face it, 90-95% of the MSM is unabashedly liberal. They'd love to see disarray in the Republican Party. What better way to produce it than elevating some third-tier hick into the second tier, and even see if you can make him pass the former front-runner (McCain)?
Politics is nothing but a moneymaking game for the media, and messing with Republican heads is the moral equivalent of cockfighting for them.
there already is dissarray in the republican party, they didnt learn squat in 06 and the best they can come up with julie annie,huckster ,romney and FRed. quite frankly I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate even if it means a hillary win.
Your reply made sense. I have never seen the Governor. I had no idea he had a visibly bad tooth that could easily be corrected especially by a person with darn good insurance and/or the funds.
Thanks.
The Huckster can’t even get Arkansas conservatives to support his presidential candidacy because we know what kind of RINO he really is. Need more proof? Read a few of the articles posted in my profile page. - OB1
Educate yourself on the Huckster’s political history as governor here in Arkansas. Read some of the articles I’ve compiled in my profile page and have your eyes opened to the real Huckster. There are many factual reasons that our state GOP party and conservative leaders won’t even support his presidential candidacy. - OB1
I will read your site but I was basing my support based on his website positions. I had not idea he was out and out lying.
You’ll be glad you did, FRiend.
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.