Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
bleport
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566Conservatives still undecided on a presidential candidate
The reason is clear why a candidate isn’t the obvious front runner in the Republican primary system: virtually none of the men running for the Republican nomination are conservatives. I, in my own life, see people wondering why Huckabee, as a pastor, has a bad record. I see people wondering if Duncan Hunter is even worth the vote because he at least has the appearance of what a pro-war conservative wants. Mitt Romney seems to be a northeastern liberal who just so happens to be Mormon, while Fred Thompson appears to still be waking up from his mid-morning nap.
This leads us to the report of many Iowa conservatives being undecided. I recently returned from a trip to Iowa, where I saw first hand in the Des Moines metro area (all the way north to Ames and Boone) that aside from a few people that are fans of Huckabee, no one really knows who they like, at least from the Republican standpoint. Democrats are solidly behind Obama, Edwards or Hillary and the countryside and towns are dominated by signs everywhere supporting one of the Democratic front runners. I never saw any Biden or Dodd signs, and there were very few Richardson supporters from what I could tell. However, the three Democrat front runners are popular in the state from what I could see.
Poll numbers have a different story for the Republicans. Somehow John McCain has an astounding 17% in the latest American Research Group poll. I met no McCain supporters nor saw any signs for the candidate. I ran into more support for Rudy Giuliani, surprisingly enough.
Tancredo showed some signs of life despite being only 1% in the polls for the past few months, but after he dropped out I was aware of numerous people calling the Ron Paul headquarters asking for signs to replace their Tancredo advertisements with. The good doctor appeared to be their second choice. Despite Romney being endorsed by Tancredo, I suspect Ron Paul and Fred Thompson will pick up the largest number of Tancredo supporters. They are the only two who appear to be against illegal immigration and amnesty.
In the end, I think the Iowa conservatives are stuck trying to decide between Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. The last month of December has been an eye opener to the conservative (as well as Independent and Democrat) base in Iowa to the Texas congressman. Most people have heard of him and are learning more, and going by the same poll referenced earlier, Paul has jumped from 4% to 10% in less than a week. Given that some Independents will vote for Dr. Paul, I would not be surprised if he even carried first place by the time the caucus rolls around.
However, Romney still has the best shot. Before the election, I am expecting some big ads to come out blasting Huckabee in every which way you can imagine. Huckabee has topped out in the polls as the greatest alternative to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, but Romney can still pull it off if he keeps up his appearance as the (at least look-alike) reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney appear to be conservatives. I believe Ron Paul is the best choice for conservatives, as Mitt Romney is not one in the least. As people have found out about Huckabee their sudden love for him is waxing cold and it will start to show in the poll numbers this final week before the caucus.
Iowans still have to pick a candidate: they just aren’t sold on one yet.
Filed under: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul | Tagged: caucus, iowa, New Hampshire, Primaries
Which means that my man Fred might actually work out to be the smart one in holding his fire to the last 3 weeks. We’ll see how it goes.
Romney as Ronald Reagan?? About as far as you can get from it. Mitt’s position is whichever way the wind blows. Old Ronnie could have given the first speech I heard from him in ‘63 the day he left the White House; the man was as stable as the rock that was his principles.
Mitt, I knew Ronald Reagan, Ron was a friend of mine and you, sir, are no Ronald Reagan!.
BTW: Paul didn’t just shoot himself in the foot with the Meet The Press interview; in Iowa, I expect he blew his leg off. You see, Iowa farm country- like most rural areas- has supplied more than it’s fair share of military people. Telling them that the wars your son, yourself, your father and your grandfather fought in all were wrong and unneccessary is not the way to make friends and influence people out that way.
The only consistent conservative in the race that also is for a strong national defense is Fred Thompson. I expect him to finish a strong third and possibly second, which is all he’ll need with his late start. But this year is harder to read than most; who knows how it’ll turn out.
I think Romney is making a mistake by going negative against Huckabee. For one thing, Iowans don’t like mean-spirited campaigns, secondly, attacking a Baptists minister certainly won’t help him win any conservative Christian support.
Kip, Huckabee is a candidate in this, not a Baptist minister. His record is fair game for attack and, considering that record and his ethics while governor, should be. Being a Baptist minister cannot serve as a talisman to ward off criticism, any more than Hillary’s gender or Obama’s race.
I am not a Mitt fan, but I get real tired of the Huckabee crowd whining and trying to drive a ‘evangelicals vs. everybody else’ wedge in. Our local paper endorsed Huckabee- like outher liberal papers have- for both his fairly liberal record and for the fact he’ll be (next to Ron Paul) the easiest Republican for the Democrats to beat in the General.
On the one hand, you are correct about there being no clear Republican front runner because there is no Conservative - in the media-invented ‘Tier 1′. Although I am impressed that you identified Duncan Hunter as THE Conservative, your characterization of “pro-war Conservatives” is offensive and a hint of your own misunderstanding and/or bias. Conservatives would prefer that every American in Iraq and Afghanistan could be home with their friends and families - not only for Christmas, but throughout the years. However, Conservatives recognize the gravity of the situation in those areas. Conservatives have learned from the appeasement mistakes by UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the years leading up to WW2. Millions died in the “reactive” WW2. Conservatives have also learned from mistakes the USA made in Vietnam. Millions were killed by Communists in the vacuum left after the Left treasonously manipulated the facts about the war and caused American will to fold. Conservatives understand that other cultures have different time frames than the short-term, deal-with-it & move-on culture of the USA today. The problem doesn’t go away if we leave. Short term, some would feel good to have the troops home right away, but Conservatives understand per the above - the lessons of history and the sad reality of human nature. Conservatives care not only about safeguarding “our house”, but would like to give families in Iraq and Afghanistan a chance too. Conservatives recognize that these areas could easily turn (again) into Taliban-like camps for training terrorists. Conservatives recognize that the Iraqi Baath party of Sadaam had neighbors who were also Baathists - in Syria. Conservatives listened to lightly covered news about caravans of trucks traveling from Iraq to Syria in the weeks before the USA’s announced invasion of Iraq. Conservatives recognize that the jury is still out about WMDs in Iraq, but see parallels with the demonization of McCarthy during the mid 1900s in his fight to root out Communists in America’s government and society. Secret Soviet documents that became available after the collapse of that empire revealed that McCarthy was correct. Conservatives recognize that in this age of technological sophistication, homeland security is almost impossible to safeguard - even if the borders were secure. Simply put, current and future WMDs are on a similar track as your Pocket PC - smaller and more powerful. Conservatives recognize that feel-good short term doesn’t make everything OK. Conservatives are not pro war. Conservatives pray for peace on earth. In the decades since the Conservative Revolution led by Ronald Regan, it has been proven time and time again that Conservatives are on the right side of history.
Great commentary. I agree that the Republican party appears to be extremely splintered right now and that none of the front running Republicans really impresses anybody. There are certainly no Barack Obamas in the group. And I feel that Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, or Thompson would all get absolutely destroyed in the general election. All of this leaves an amazing opportunity for Ron Paul. He is the only guy on the Republican side that actually speaks the truth. Once people realize what he really stands for and how right he is on the big issues, I think his support will continue to grow.
Ron Paul is an interesting character, and his supporters certainly have touted him as the only one “speaking truth”, but I wonder if anyone really looks at some of the inconsistancies in his campaign, for example his waffling on evolution. I’m surprised that there is no strong republican front-runner, and wonder what it is republicans as a whole are looking for in a presidential candidate… or if the republican party has become as fractured and varied as the candidates seem to indicate.
As Mike Huckabee’s record and rhetoric is being more and more scrutinized, opposition from most Conservative Leaders grows more numerous and louder each passing hour it seems. The rank and file of these leaders, which number in the tens of millions, seem to be coalescing around their arguments about how un-conservative Huck is on defense, illegal immigration, taxes, government growth and other issues of importance to conservatives.
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly says Huckabee “destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party in shambles,” Schlafly charges, “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Huckabee.”
Richard Viguerie remarked about Huck, “But while Gov. Huckabee stands strong on some issues like abortion that are important to social conservatives, a careful examination of his record as governor reveals that he is just another wishy-washy Republican who enthusiastically promotes big government.”
The Club for Growth, which Huckabee does not seem to get along with, had this to say about the Huckster: “Governor Huckabee’s record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag, with pro-growth positions on trade and tort reform, mixed positions on school choice, political speech, and entitlement reform, and profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending, and government regulation.
His recent refusals to rule out raising taxes if elected President-the cornerstone of a pro-growth platform-perhaps indicate which path he would choose.”
Ann Coulter dubbed Huckabee “the Republican Jimmy Carter,” and no sane conservative wants another Jimmy Carter in the White House.
Anti-Illegal immigration advocates say they fear Mr. Huckabee could repeat President Bush’s track record on immigration, which they say amounted to tough talk but a failure to follow through. Mr. Huckabee’s campaign admitted that they never followed through with signing an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to secure training for state police officers. Without it, they cannot enforce federal immigration law.
“This is a policy difference, but the facts are the facts — under Governor Huckabee’s administration, there was never even any effort to begin negotiating with Homeland Security,” said former state Rep. Jeremy Hutchinson, the Republican who sponsored the 2005 law.
Huckster’s illegal-enabling attitude is apparent in a deal to establish a partially taxpayer-financed Mexican consulate office in Little Rock, a scheme involving the lease of building space to the Mexican government for $1 a year. Then there was Huck’s support of drivers’ licenses, government benefits and in-state tuition rates for illegals and his opposition to a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once ‘his No. 1 fan.’ She was bitterly disappointed with his record. ‘He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal,’ she says. ‘Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don’t be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office.’
Jennifer Rubin at the National Review summarized his record on taxes while serving as governor in Arkansas.
By the end of his second term he had raised sales taxes 37 percent, fuel taxes 16 percent, and cigarettes taxes 103 percent, leading to a jump in total tax revenues from $3.9 billion to $6.8 billion. The Cato Institute gave him a failing grade of ‘F’ on its fiscal report card for 2006 and an only marginally better but still embarrassing ‘D’ for his entire term.”
Rush Limbaugh remarked that “The Huckabee campaign is trying to dumb down conservatism in order to get it to conform with his record.”
Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, has said it would be political suicide to nominate him.
Conservative UCLA law professor Steve Bainbridge, libertarian Cato Institute scholar Michael Tanner, and libertarian-leaning columnist Deroy Murdock have presented some excellent reasons why anyone who cares about limiting the power of government has every reason to oppose Huckabee’s nomination.
Pat Toomey wrote an op-ed in the National Review exposing Huckabee’s “stunning record of big-government liberalism,” protectionism and support for unions. He explains that “the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent” and that “state spending increased by 50 percent.”
Do Republicans and conservatives really want to elect another Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter?
Mitt Romney is the best conservative candidate to defeat the Huckster.
@ Mike O. So I guess a politician should lie and say yes going to war is grand and great. As a matter of fact we should just lob nukes at everyone and kill, kill, kill. No wonder the other Nations hate us, it’s that cavalier attitude. So how much blood and treasure and freedom will you sacrifice, till there is none I suppose. People respect Ron Paul for his being truthful. Never mind that he’s the one candidate to get more financial support from the troops then the other Rethuglicans.
Why do you think our Founders warned us over and over and over not to do the things we are? What for the fun of it, no, they knew exactly what would happen to us a Nation..tyranny. You know that little thing we fought a Revolution for. So don’t presume to speak for those in the Military. I am a Marine and I am for Ron Paul. You CAN support the troops and DISLIKE the war or wars. That’s what being an American is all about…the right to dissent. Even as a troop member you can and are required to disobey unlawful orders.
@darkjoan I am sorry but his answer to the evolution question is very justifiable and correct. There are no absolute answers on our existence and how we came about. Even the things in science we thought we knew for sure in the past are being changed as we learn more. So his answer was a truthful one, you cannot say you know everything there is to know, that’s an impossibility. Would you rather he lied and said yes. Voters always complain when politicians lie, yet when faced with someone who is truthful and honest they run away from him like he has the plague. Sad.