George Will, Rush Limbaugh, & Sean Hannity have all been taking continuous runs at John McCain and Huckabee. McCain has an 82 lifetime conservative rating. Romney passed socialized health care in Massachusetts, raised taxes $700 million as governor including local property taxes, favored a woman's right to choose, "supported" Massachusetts tough gun laws and the Brady Bill, offered Michigan a $20 billion bailout of the auto industry, and lost manufacturing jobs at rate of 14% from 2002-2006 as governor (twice the national average).

Yet the conservative pundits do not seem concerned about this.

Questions for Debate:


1) Is Romney more 'liberal' than John McCain or Mike Huckabee?

2) Why is Mitt Romney acceptable to 'conservative' pundits? Is he acceptable to you?

I have never trusted Mitt, or "The Glove" as my wife and I have so passionately dubbed him. He seems to be the cookie cutter type candidate. Tell me what I want to hear, have nice hair and be rich. With all of the disagreements surrounding his record and stance on issues, I have to say that I don't want to know what skeletons are really in his closet. If the country can't get a straight answer about is tax record, how do we expect to get a straight answer about other issues. Sometimes it just comes down to a gut feeling, and I just don't trust The Glove. I just get this image of him in college in my mind with him wearing a soft pink button down shirt and a sweater tied around his neck.

1) Is Romney more 'liberal' than John McCain or Mike Huckabee?

I think so, certainly more liberal than McCain is on most issues.



2) Why is Mitt Romney acceptable to 'conservative' pundits? Is he acceptable to you?

I don't know that he really is. I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore and I've never listened to Hannity . They most likely aren't happy with any of the GOP candidates and that's fine. They are radio and TV people that like to think of themselves as some sort of conservative king makers. They aren't. Limbaugh hates McCain, always has near as I can tell and it probably ticks him off that McCain can go into South Carolina and win a primary. I think it's more of an ego thing than anything else and one thing you don't wanna do with Limbaugh is to hurt his ego. It makes him sad.......

I could live with Romney over Clinton or Obama but he's not my first choice.

Aquilla

I'll echo Aquilla's sentiments here: I think of the viable candidates, Romney is not as conservative as McCain but is more conservative than Huckabee.

I think Romney has some support because the preception that he would know what is good for business. Pro-business is a big one for certain Republicans (myself included).

I don't think Limbaugh and Hannity focus as much on religion as they do on economic conservatism (which isn't to say that family issues aren't important to them) so that allows them to give a pass to Romney.

Romney would not be my first choice, but at least he seems to have a solid family and a solid family is a mark of a solid person (in my opinion). This would be in contrast to, say, Rudy who is a nightmare on personal conduct and family issues.

Romney would not be my first choice, but he would be better than Billary.

1) Is Romney more 'liberal' than John McCain or Mike Huckabee?

"Conservative" in the republican party since Reagan has meant "spending more money than any democrat in history on boondoggle borrow and spend programs"- I will have to ask what you mean by that- please clarify?

McCain is no less "goverment into your bedrooms and business" as any democrat that has ever held office, and Romney has not been 'conservative" by any yardstick I know- can you define a little more closely what you are trying to say?

If you mean using the bible to beat non-believers over the head and legisltating morality- I couldn't tell you which is worse. No republican has ever cut the budget in my lifetime- the party of fiscal conservative has now switched over to the party of the donkey- there are no fiscal consertives running on the ticket this year except Ron Paul.

2) Why is Mitt Romney acceptable to 'conservative' pundits? Is he acceptable to you?

All "frontrunners" are deemed so by the media- popular or grassroots support has nothing to do with it. The media is no longer "left wing" but no more than a propaganda arm for corporate America, without regards for party.

McCain has always been on the side of big business, even when they are in the middle of a big scam- anyone here remember the Keating 5? Though I don't think he was personally corrupt, his ideology of not interfereing with big business is what got him into trouble.

Niether have done any thing of note for small business interests, as defined as any company with under 100 employees. Al Gore did more for me than any republican in my lifetime. And that is a very sad commentary.

They have both been treated with kid gloves, and given prime media coverage for thier campaigns, so I would say they are both being given a "pass" in the media.

Hillary is more conserative than both, if she intends to follow in Bill's footsteps regarding the national economy- so she is probably the most conservative candidate other than Ron Paul.

I fail to see one republican candidate that can be called even mildly fiscally conservative.

I was right - it IS all about ego. After seeing this thread I decided to tune into Rush for a bit today and sure enough, it's all about Rush. Whine whine whine, sheesh! You'd think he was a liberal with how he goes on and on about how much wrong has been done to him.

He was talking about how he was being declared irrelevant this weekend and now apparently Fred Barnes wrote an article saying McCain needs to visit Rush in Florida..... Bad idea, but it feeds the ego I suppose.

The FACT of the matter is that Rush Limbaugh, while touting himself as a "true Reagan Conservative" has about as much in common with President Reagan's political philosophy as CR does. Trust me, I know Reagan, better than anyone here, and sure as hell better than any radio talk show host does. I know what he stood for and why. Quite frankly, if Ronald Reagan were running for President today, Rush would be ripping him up one side and down the other. And Reagan wouldn't meet with him. He'd just roll his eyes and say, "there you go again".

So no, McCain doesn't need to meet with Limbaughand bow down to the self-proclaimed "master". He just needs to roll his eyes and say, "There he goes again".


Edited to add:

Rush IS irrelevant.

Aquilla

CruisingRam, could you please stick to answering the questions and don't turn this into a flame on Republicans. Your temporary conversion may permit you to post here, but please follow the spirit of the forum.

I also tuned into Limbaugh today. He is complaining about being labeled both the "Republican establishment" and "irrelevant" at the same time. He diagrees with both labels. He mentioned an article from David Brooks in '06 where Brooks claimed there were three parties -- Republicans, Democrats, and the "McCain-Lieberman" party that isn't attached to party labels in a tribalist, dogmatic Shia-Sunni sense. Limbaugh takes this to mean that this "third" party will not stand up on priciples, instead relying on compromising one's principles to gain a temporary agreement which only weakens your position. It is obvious that Rush does not like to compromise. "Moderate" is a bad word for him, almost as bad as "liberal".

Limbaugh has ripped McCain for years. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, opposition to the Bush tax cuts, support for global warming legislation and other issues are simply deal breakers for Limbaugh. I don't think Limbaugh is a Republican die-hard, he is a conservative die-hard (as defined by himself, of course). He makes good points and I am personally rethinking my support for McCain. McCain is good on many issues, but on some he is simply not anywhere near my position.

Since I actually want to see real cuts and fiscal responsibility- I believe I would be the more conservative between you and I. Since I actually want smaller goverment, and to do away with several goverment agencies- I would be the more conservative.

Nothing to flame about- it is simply fact if we are sticking to the idea that "conservartive" actually means "less goverment, fiscal responsibility"- I see no candidate today that meets that criteria other than Ron Paul.

If you have some other definition of "conservative" that espouses big goverment and spending like a drunken sailor- I would say that "conservatives" look alot like a "liberal" of the 70s- except that liberals of the 70s at least demanded more revenue to pay for programs instead of borrowing money to provide for giant programs.

Really- what are we talking about when we say "which is more conservative" if they both believe in big goverment programs and overall increased spending?

Has nothing to do with flaming- but obviously, to quote the Princess bride " I don't think that word means what you think it means".

My "conversion" to the republican party is because one candidate, and only one, is a conservative with his actions and words- wanting to cut the size of goverment, stop the uber-spending and reduce federal programs. Not one other candidate in the campaign today has really taken more than lip service to those positions.

If both Romney and McCain favor big goverment programs to cure social ills- can they be considered conservative at all?

If Bill Clinton actually was the most fiscally responsible candidate in nearly 50 years, by using what criteria can you call him, or if his wife follows those same policies- liberal?

As I've said many times, Conservative means more than "fiscal conservative" otherwise Ron Paul might be the role model conservative. Conservative means strong on national defense, supportive of traditional American values, family-friendly, pro-life, pro-individual rights, smaller government, allowing private entities and families to provide charity instead of making it a public burden.

The biggest hurdle when it comes to implementing Conservative principles is the entitlement mentality that has set in with the welfare state which began with Social Security in the 1930s and simply expanded from there. The Third Rail simply is too much of a challenge for anyone to even attempt to implement reforms, even though it will drive us to bankruptcy.

Well, appearances can be deceiving. Romney's record running Massachusetts' economy was not good by any measure. I've already cited that jobs lost in the state doubled the national average during his time and the rest of it isn't any prettier. Big promises, little to no delivery - that is Mitt Romney.

I agree that Hannity and Rush are more economic minded, but that is my whole point. Romney's economic record is horrid. Romney's record is on socialized medicine. How on earth is this guy going to take on the Democrats on this issue? McCain on the other hand is the biggest budget hawk there is. If we want a strong economic future, the spending has to get under control and McCain is actually as good as his word that he'll veto outrageous spending bills.

Okay- McCain- strong on national defense. I will give him that one. I will give every candidate that one- they all say that anyway- dem, repub or otherwise. They all just have different ways of saying it- but it is still the same.

Family values and traditional American values? I never have found out what the heck that means. It seems to be different for every person that utters it- it is more of a boogeyman or propaganda point? I mean really- an alaskan's view of what "tradition" is may be much more different than what an east-coaster's may be. What does this mean Amlord? Usually, when I hear this I hear "some white dude of northern European descent's idea of how other people should live"- and is usually ANTI-individual rights.

Pro-individual rights- the entire republican party, except for the libertarian wing, has been PROFOUNDLY anti-individual rights- quite the opposite, attempting to pass or passing anti-individual rights at a breakneck speed- the "war on drugs" is the main culprit here, a republican party concoction from jump. Neither McCain nor Romney are even remotely pro-individual rights- in fact, if you consider anti-individual rights as "liberal"- then McCain and Romney are two of the MOST liberal candidates in this field.

Smaller goverment? There has been no republican leader that has said "I am for smaller goverment" and actually followed through on this comment. Yanking the money from one group and just giving it to another is NOT smaller goverment- it is just goverment growth in another area. If the overall size of the goverment increases, regardless of what department it is put into- you have goverment growth- period. I don't see McCain nor Romney actually cutting the size of goverment anywhere, just growing it for thier friends instead of the other side's friends.

Um, is there some law against giving to private charities in this country or something? I haven't seen anyone being denied the right to donate?

Amlord- I have not heard you condemn the money spent on the poor in Iraq. Why is it okay to build schools, provide free health care for Iraqis, give trillions of dollars to another country to help the poor instead of "relying on private charity", but not okay to do that for the US?

I am all for cutting entitlement programs- as long we cut the entitlement programs for non-US citizens FIRST- THEN see what we can't afford and need to cut domestically.

It is not conservative to spend like a drunken sailor overseas and then cut massively here.

And not one candidate, not even Ron Paul, has really laid out how we are going to keep the country stable while these cuts happen.

Okay- let's look at the big two entitlement programs- SS and Medicaid/Medicare.

Do we cut the pensions of every retiree in the nation, and make them live off of what they had actually put in? We have 43million working poor, that can't afford medical care in this country, and probably twice that number that qualify for medicaid.

Are you okay with the death toll that will create? Do we allow hospitals to turn away those that can't pay- since there is no more medicaid or medicare? Your having a heart attack- to bad, you can't pay- go away and die somewhere?

What candidate proposes something to do about all that?

I have a problem with the "mainstream' candidates giving lip service to this stuff, telling everyone how they will cut this or that, but never do, and come up with no reasonable plan to fix it, and just keep the status quo- and McCain and Romney will not really upset the apple cart here, and you know it- but the self proclaimed "conservatives" are the biggest hypocrites of all- no self proclaimed "conservative" has cut the size of goverment, individual liberties or really shown any "family values"- including the Reagan-as-gawd-mythose believers. Reagan increased the size of goverment, and decreased individual rights- period. What he spent the money on is irrelevent- the goverment grew, and our rights were decreased.


So

Pro-life? Both candidates mentioned- check

Family values and traditional American stuff? - fluffy words with no meaning or no real definition- draw, because you can move the goal posts at any time.

Big on defense? - all candidates, no matter what party, check

Shrink goverment? both candidates mentioned- an F-, as they both would expand goverment, and decrease individual rights.

Individual rights? The republican party has been on the wrong side of this for decades, probably since the 60s when they last were pro-civil rights- so F- for both candidates here.

So far, only one candidate has really proposed to end entitlement programs- and that is Ron Paul. Only one candidate has been actually against pork- Ron Paul.

The difference in that area, is that McCain and Romney will simply say it isn't pork when they please, whereas Ron Paul considers most bills to be pork- in other words, honest about it.

So far, both candidates mentioned look alot more liberal than conservative, when you get down to the empirical, able to measure areas. The rest is just propaganda and rhetorical nonsense.

CR, you're all over the board as usual. No links, no factual examples from voting, no historical context, etc.

Spending overseas is a function of every administration since Hoover.
Let's use an example. Clinton maybe? How did he feel about foreign aid?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A96F958260
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/grogan/050706
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandF...gnAid/EM573.cfm

Let's just be realistic, the only difference in a GOP President and a DNC President these days has been an approach to taxation and the use of military force (for the most part).

I will agree with the notion that some candidates look marginally liberal on the GOP side. However, this paragraph is out there man...


Everyone that doesn't live under a bridge understands that there are some "old school" values, such as a nuclear family, the need for spirituality (or religion), gainful employment, decency in the media, etc. I'm not saying that all Conservatives live those values, but it seems that a strong dividing line in the US can be seen along those issues.

Here are a couple of articles with ideas on the issue;
http://pewforum.org/religion-politics/
http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/relandpo.htm

Sure- they're opinions, but make some differing statements with factual backing.

The truth, the SAD truth about this year's election cycle is that the GOP is leaning heaviily on the Evangelical Christians to turn out for votes. I pray that Huckabee and Romney wash out for just that reason. While I'm a very religious man, I can't see that it's practical for the US to vote a man in because he professes to be religious. I would imagine someone that truly follows the teachings of Jesus would show it in his every day actions and be a billboard for the positive side of Christianity, not some man that makes us feel like we should take a bath in bleach.

(EDITED TO ADD: I also believe that a good Buddhist, to the outside world, might also make a good "Christian". In either case, the actions would speak volumes)

Feel free to be honest and change your party affiliation, Cruising Ram. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of your voluminous posts here knows you hate Republicans. Just be honest.

Now, as for your "points":

Spending in Iraq: Newsflash: war costs money. It costs more money today than it did before World War II (relatively) since we are commited to fixing what we break. I know, it's a stupid mindset to break something and then fix it, but hey it is what it is. Other than that, if you care to bring some facts, we might discuss them in another thread since this isn't about Iraq and we have not spent "trillions" there.

The current government is far from my idea of conservative. On some issues it is and it is certainly closer than any of the current crop of Democrats is ever going to be, but George W Bush has never been a true conservative he came into office as a "Compassionate Conservative" which I now interpret to mean "big government" conservative. You are entirely correct that the spending in Washington is out of control and does not meet even the loosest definition of fiscal conservative.

However, using the general case to denounce the specific candidates we are discussing is simply false logic. John McCain has fought pork bills, opposed the Bush tax cuts until they had accompanying spending cuts, and has pledged to make the sponsors of pork "famous".

Romney's Massachussets situation must be taken with a grain of salt. State level taxation is a different beast than federal. I agree with a fee based approach for local and state government services, as this puts the burden on those that utilize those services (hunting licenses, driver's licenses, etc.). Gasoline taxes to pay for road construction is also a form of user tax.

Romney's role in the business world is a very large positive in my view, putting him far above McCain who has spent decades in the Senate. Anyone who actually works to run a business knows the burdens that the government can place on them in the form of regulations and taxes.

As for family issues, sorry you don't understand what is meant by traditional family values: two parent family as the ideal, marriage as one man and one woman, parents are responsible for raising their kids; you know Beaver Cleaver stuff.

"Pensions" and "Social Security" are two different things. Of course, on one hand you say "I'm all in favor of cutting entitlement programs" and you also say "what are we going to do if we cut these entitlement programs, let these people die?". Hypocritical.

McCain is against "torture" and for giving detainees Constitutional rights. Seems pro-individual rights to me.

Well CR, that is because you aren't listening. From McCain's South Carolina victory speech.

In his 25 years in Congress John McCain has never voted for an increase in tax rates. Never. Actually following through with decreasing the size of government examples: Stopping the Boeing Air Force deal saved billions. He voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution which was defeated in 1997. In 2005, he voted to decrease federal spending $40 billion with Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act; Bill S. 1932. And as for the rest of your laundry list on McCain, please just read this.

Hmm, some of them are horribly contridicting- how do you "enforce family values" while limiting the scope of goverment?

If your "traditional family value" means one man and one woman married and making babies- how do you have a decrease in goverment intervention- or, do you ignore it by not having the goverment intervene at all?

So, are you saying you are okay with MORE goverment oversite to enforce those (made up, fake, leave it to beaver ) family values?

Seems like about 99% of goverment abuses comes through enforcing your "family values" .

The funniest comment is "war costs alot" - ya, so does a welfare state. So what? You either spend less money or you don't. Taking money from one place and spending even more somewhere else IS NOT conservative in any way. It is simply making mouth noises about being conservative, but it is no difference than providing money to the poor in our country.

I still am waiting for anyone in this debate to explain how spending trillions on another countries schools, medical system and a myriad of "social programs" is "conservative" while doing that in the US is "liberal"

I'm with you, CR, as much as it can hurt to say! Spending is spending. It isn't that I don't support the wars. I don't know if going to war in Iraq was the smartest move we have made as a nation, but we are there now, and I am of the opinion we should finish what we started. Nation building is definitely against what I believe to be conservative ideology. Can anyone give me a better description of what we went there for and what we are doing there?

I also don't believe we are smart to send the billions of aid money to the African countries for purposes of feeding and AIDS. If we can raise the kind of money we have as a nation to elect a president, why can't we voluntarily raise that kind of money to help those in need? Why do we rely so heavily on the government?

But I digress, the issues that are labeled "family values", in my humble opinion have no business at the federal level. Just the three branches of our government discussing these issues is a waste of money. If states want to address those issues, that is a different conversation. Those candidates (all of them except Paul) that want to regulate values through governmental control have no real interest in making the federal government smaller.