Romney vs. Thompson

With 3 debates under their belt, the 10 Republican Presidential candidates are ready to go for 2008. While current polling has established a top tier of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, many conservatives feel unimpressed with the selection of candidates as it stands. But wait, now these have disillusioned Republicans have put their hope behind Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee and star of NBC’s “Law & Order.” Will he be the savior of conservativism that rallies the Republican base to a ’08 victory? Maybe.

Here’s what we know about Fred Thompson: he’s a strong southern conservative with a voting record to back it up, born in the great state of Alabama, a former (possibly current) member of the church of Christ, and he’s a good actor from what I understand. He’s right on all the issues, he’s got a lot of support, he was born in Alabama and he’s at least affiliated with the church of Christ; what’s not to like?

Let’s take into account that it’s only June 2007 and the primaries don’t start until late January of 2008. I guess it never hurts to start early. But with 3 debates and a lot of politicking and polling behind them, the current 10 candidates have already got this machine running. What I’m saying is that I don’t have a problem with Fred Thompson per se. I have a problem with the circumstances he’s in by his late involvement in the race.

What irks me the most about this situation is that these “other conservatives” can’t be satisfied with nominating a strong conservative that’s already in the race (i.e. Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee). Republicans of all backgrounds must understand that if we are to win in 2008, we must unite behind a winnable candidate that reflects that values of our party. Rudy Giuliani does not meet that criteria. He is undeniably winnable, but he has values that are anything but conservative. John McCain is an old curmudgeon who has fought against the conservative base far too many times. He is not electable, if even likable. Therefore, we must find a conservative and electable candidate. Who will it be?

As you probably know if you’ve read my other blogs, I’ve thrown my support by Mitt Romney (as if that makes a difference in his campaign). I will continue to do because he has everything: conservative values, charisma, the “it factor,” gravitas, whatever you want to call it. He’s even got the presidential “look.” Fred Thompson has conservative values and definitely a certain degree of charisma which is required for him to be an actor, but does he have what it takes? I’m not so sure.

I’d be perfectly content with either Romney or Thompson as President. Quite frankly, I like Fred Thompson. But when it comes down to experience, and all the little factors that define what makes a successful Republican candidate, Romney remains my favorite as well as what I believe to be the best man for the job.

6 Responses to Romney vs. Thompson

  1. madmouser says:

    You are right of course. Romney has leadership skills as a Governor, while Thompson was a Senator. I don’t think Senators have succeeded in the modern era when running for the presidency. Who knows? This is a very crazy time and anything can happen. I just hope and pray that Hillary doesn’t get elected.

  2. Braden says:

    Excellent point. The problem with much of the field of candidates (i.e. McCain, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, and others) is that they are congressman and senators. It takes real leadership and management capabilities to run a state or even a country. Romney has proven himself there. Giuliani has also done that. Who knows how Fred Thompson would do? It’s hard to gauge without a record of him being in that kind of position. Hillary would probably do irreparable harm to this country if elected.

  3. FiCon says:

    If you think Fred Thompson has conservative values, you may want to peruse his voting record. For starters, voted not to prioritize tax cuts, opposed the 1998 GOP budget, limited the President’s power to impose economic sanctions on other nations, opposed banning Congressional gifts from lobbyists, supported the algore “lockbox” for Social Security, opposed tax deductions for college tuition, supported welfare block grants, was for McCain-Feingold, and voted not to convict President Bill Clinton in the impeachment hearings for perjury because he did not believe perjury is an impeachable offense. Ah, yes, and he’s admitted to past womanizing.

    What’s Rudy’s big sin? He’s Pro-Choice but will appoint strict constructionist judges. THE HORROR! THE HORROR! A President who will be functionally Pro-Life but (gasp) may harbor personal disagreements! Well, let’s just hand the election to Hillary, we certainly can’t have that, can we?

    If Giuliani isn’t conservative on your axis, then Thompson must be off in Red Square having tea with Lenin.

  4. Braden says:

    Okay, Thompson is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-gun control, which is far more than we can say for Rudy. But if Thompson is as “liberal” as you say he is, then he’s about even with Giuliani, so what makes him so much better? Keep in mind that I’m still supporting Romney over Thompson…and Giuliani. Giuliani is fiscally conservative and he’s tough on the War on Terror, but that’s about the extent of it. He’s virtually no different than the average democrat other than those two things. Speaking of past womanizing, I think Rudy’s got everybody beat there (maybe even Bill Clinton). Besides, Romney is the most presidential of all the candidates in the field and he’s the one I’m voting for.

  5. FiCon says:

    Giuliani isn’t pro-gay marriage. Romney actually might be pro-gay marriage, but he’s decided to change (or lie) about all his stances on social issues, which were about the same or more liberal than Rudy’s before the nomination process. Plus, Romney is not a satisfactory fiscal conservative. Review the Club for Growth evaluations of Romney and Giuliani for an elaboration. Romney also polls the worst head-to-head against the Democrats in a general election — only Giuliani and McCain win or run within the margin of error against most of the Dems, Thompson is beaten fairly soundly, and Romney gets obliterated. Why would you nominate someone who is likely to lose soundly? I’d rather win with someone I agree with on most things than have President Hillar…I can’t even type that without feeling ill.

    FWIW, a President wields little to no power over social issues other than judicial appointments. A President wields significant power over defense and finance matters.

  6. Braden says:

    Not a satisfactory fiscal conservative? He balanced the budget four years straight in the bluest state in the union without raising taxes. Club for Growth’s information on Romney wasn’t very accessible for some reason. Romney is easily the most presidential of all the candidates out there. I think it’s a bit premature to throw out the possibility of Romney or Thompson defeating Clinton or Obama. Romney and Thompson both could destroy Hillary or Obama in a debate. Obama’s inexperience and well Hillary’s….Hillary. As for Romney changing his positions, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan himself did that. I can’t fault either of them for their changes, why should I do it to Romney? Don’t get me wrong, I’d vote for Giuliani if he won the nomination and I’d much rather have him than McCain. Speaking of which, I don’t think McCain would beat Hillary or Obama. He’s a jerk, he’s got no charisma, and he’s pissed off the base one too many times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: