I’ve heard of these people.
Never heard of these people.
According to Wikipedia (I’m citing Wikipedia), these six men are the “official” Republican presidential candidates for 2008.
Since no infanticide-supporting, “pro-choice,” open borders-advocating, pro-homosexual “marriage” person will get my vote, that excludes all Democratic frontrunners.
Republican John McCain tends to waffle on abortion, and he’s not conservative enough for me. Strangely enough, I’m on his blogroll. And Rudy Giuliani is a social liberal. Both are out.
What about Mitt Romney? Well, I’d vote for an atheist Republican if he were socially conservative (fiscal conservatism counts, too, but I weigh the social aspect more heavily), so Romney’s Mormonism isn’t a deal-breaker, although I’m not comfortable with it. Yesterday I received a review copy of Hugh Hewitt’s new book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney. Perhaps it will ease my discomfort.
I don’t know anything about Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, or John Cox.
My ideal close-to-ideal candidate is unequivocally pro-life, anti-homosexual “marriage,” anti-race preferences and entitlements, and outspokenly pro-immigration enforcement and anti-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens. Congressman Tom Tancredo, who is considering a presidential run, fits the bill. If nominated, he’s got my vote.
So, Republican- or third party-voting readers, educate me:
1) Who is your ideal close-to-ideal candidate and why, whether or not he’s listed as a frontrunner?
2) If your ideal candidate isn’t nominated, will you vote for whichever Republican is nominated, or will you vote for a third party candidate?
1) Who is your ideal candidate and why, whether or not he’s listed as a frontrunner?
There’s no such human being, so I’ll have to go for the one closest to ideal. So far, the only two people I’m interested in researching are Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, and Thompson hasn’t even announced.
2) If your ideal candidate isn’t nominated, will you vote for whichever Republican is nominated, or will you vote for a third party candidate?
Absolutely. I’m not throwing my vote away on a third party loser, risking the possibility of facilitating a Hillary or Obama or Edwards White House. Too frightening. The lesser of evils will be WHATEVER Republican is nominated, even if I need to hold my nose while voting.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.14.07 @ 10:14 am
I would love to hear more about Duncan Hunter, the things I have heard about him in the past I like.
I am like you, I will only support a pro-life candidate,and pro- immigration candidate.
I hope that because of those two stands that I haven’t created a situation impossible to fulfill.
Comment by jennifer — 03.14.07 @ 10:14 am
Eh. Not impressed with most of them. Duncan Hunter is probably the closest for me, but he’s a long shot.
Romney rubs me the wrong way and it’s not that he’s a Mormon. I think it’s that his views have changed on key issues and his current views don’t appear to be genuine. I have no way of knowing, of course.
In a perfect world, my candidate would not address terrorism, illegal immigration, border security, and national security as separate issues–they are all interrelated. Sorry, but the social issues are secondary to those for me. Abortion and gay marriage debates won’t do any good if a dirty bomb goes off.
But this is not a perfect world and I may end up supporting the candidate who is most closely orbiting national security.
Comment by MK Anderson — 03.14.07 @ 10:24 am
I need to know a lot more about Thompson, assuming he decides to run. What I know so far sounds ok. He opposes gun control, opposes homosexual “marriages” but wants states to decide legal rights for “civil unions,” opposes abortion and thinks Roe was a lousy decision, supports the troop surge while being critical of past mistakes in Iraq, and supports border enforcement as the first priority in controlling the illegal alien mess.
I can’t find much wrong in those positions.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.14.07 @ 10:26 am
So far Duncan Hunter has my vote. Thompson is a interesting second choice. (Not sure what baggage he brings.)
Personally, I think a Governor has a better chance at being elected, but I don’t see any I particularly like yet.
And I’d vote for any Republican over the Democrat, unless Zell Miller organized a coup and took over that party. Can we draft Zell on our side?
Comment by Tom — 03.14.07 @ 10:32 am
I am not a fan of any of these guys. Although, I would vote for Romney (despite his sudden change of heart on abortion 2 1/2 years ago- probably about the time he decided to make a go of it as a contender)
(and, should he run…) I may like Newt Gingrich’s politics but i don’t think he’s electable.
The other guys I don’t know much about either, and as their public faces aren’t getting any more well known, I doubt they will make it as serious contenders.
My ideal? Someone Pro-life, Pro-military, pro-border security, charismatic, likable, and most of all: inspiring.
Got anybody in mind??
Me neither.
Comment by jewels — 03.14.07 @ 10:33 am
La Shawn,
Tancredo is my first choice for the same reasons you listed. A candidate must be 100% pro-life, meaning no discrimination against babies born in unfortunate circumstances. Anyone who takes a position between that and “pro-choice”, I call “cosmetically pro-life”.
I believe that the illegal immigration problem MUST be taken care of and we must have a President who doesn’t fake it on these issues.
Duncan Hunter has the same positions on these issues. I like him too. As of yet, I just don’t see him having the fire in his belly, but it could happen. I think he would make a great running mate with Tancredo.
Please do more than just wait for “if he gets nominated”. WE ARE the Republican Party, not the Establishment.
Comment by Michelle — 03.14.07 @ 10:35 am
La Shawn, have you given any consideration to Sam Brownback? If not, what objections do you have with him? Just curious.
Comment by Eddie — 03.14.07 @ 10:48 am
I no longer believe in ideal candidates. I will vote in the Rep. primary for the most Pro-life person.
But, regardless of the outcome, I won’t vote for a third party candidate in the general election. I’ll vote for the Republican who’s running against Hillary Clinton.
The GOP, even with all their faults, is the best hope for social and fiscal conservatives.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes, three lefts make a right. :p
James
Comment by Rifleman — 03.14.07 @ 10:49 am
I guess Duncan Hunter since I am originally from San Diego, CA. Lord help us if a Dem is elected!
Comment by Tracey — 03.14.07 @ 10:53 am
My picks are Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, in that order… All 3 are pro-life, pro gun, oppose homosexual marriage, support border/immigration control and are, in my mind at least, pretty well conservative, America 1st kind of guys…
McCain and Giuliani are all over the place and I don’t see much in the way of conservatism in em, wouldn’t vote for them… McCain is a RINO and Giuliani is a libber twit in disguise…
Mitt WHO?? I’m not gonna vote for anyone that was the Gov. of Taxachusetts…
Ron Paul is a declared candidate as of yesterday and he’s a life long libertarian according to his statement, and even tho he is a fellow Texan, not a chance I’d vote for him… Just can’t get excited one way or the other…
a href=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17581400″>Rep. Ron Paul joins presidential race
John Cox?? Who?? No seriously, WHO??
If we end up with McCain and/or Giuliani as the Republican candidates this time around, if that’s the best the RNC can come up with, I’ll do a ‘write in’, and I am quite serious…
Comment by TexasFred — 03.14.07 @ 11:05 am
My frontrunners would be either Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. I believe Fred Thompson’s command of politics, strict constitutional adherence, opposition to abortion, support of gun rights, demeanor and commanding presence are just a few of the reasons I would vote for him. I would also like to see Newt run. I believe that Gingrich and Thompson easily outclass the current crop of Republican contenders.
If neither Gingrich or Thompson gets the nomination then I would vote for the person who gets the nomination. If we split our vote then we hand the White House over to Hillary or Obama.
Comment by Jeff Turner — 03.14.07 @ 11:08 am
Sorry, guys…but, yuck. If I had to choose, Giuliani would be the guy. He knows firsthand the dangers we face from radical Islam. He’s not interested in stripping civil rights from fellow citizens (gays) and is pro-choice. By the way, have any of the “pro-life” Presidents ever appeared at the March for Life in person rather than via speakerphone? No? Shocking.
Comment by Angel — 03.14.07 @ 11:09 am
Rep. Ron Paul joins presidential race
Sorry, the Ron Paul link didn’t take for some reason…
Comment by TexasFred — 03.14.07 @ 11:09 am
First of all let me clarify that I am an endangered species in the United States: the conservative Democrat.
With that said, I cannot vote for any of the Democrats currently running (nor the ones like Al Gore who are thinking about running).
On the other side of the aisle, none of the current Republican candidates thrill me much either although I would vote for any of them over the current batch of Democrats.
Would I vote for a Democrat? Certainly, if one would come along with common sense, conservative values. The only one that comes close that I can think of off the top of my head is Zell Miller (D, GA) and I haven’t heard or read anything indicating he’s even thinking about it.
Who would I like to see run? Fred Thompson would be my first choice. He’s the closest thing to a Reagan-Republican that I know of at the moment and frankly I believe his intelligence and speaking skills would defeat either Clinton or Obama in any public debate. I know little to nothing about Duncan Hunter but reading the comments here, I will look into his background. In regards to Newt Gingrich, I believe he’s unelectable but probably would be picked for a cabinet position if a Republican wins in 2008.
Bottom line: It’s way too early to make any sort of predictions and a lot can happen between now and November 2008. If something doesn’t change for the better in regards to the Republican party I fear that Hillary Clinton will be elected in ‘08.
Comment by Carl — 03.14.07 @ 11:11 am
Fred Thompson impresses me more than any of the others.
Would I vote for a Democrat? Only if it was Zell miller.
Comment by Alan — 03.14.07 @ 11:17 am
Here’s the ticket.
President Fred Thompson
Vice President J.C. Watts
Any waffling on pro-life is unexceptable. We are one justice away from a major overhaul of Roe vs. Wade. A generations worth of effort is about to produce fruit.
To go with Guliani or an opportunist pro-life candidate would be like driving 99 yards down a football field and then saying at the one yard line, “You know scoring a touchdown isn’t the most important thing. I think I’ll punt”
Comment by Hashman — 03.14.07 @ 11:18 am
Fred Thompson is considering running. If he does, he’s the man.
Comment by Mike — 03.14.07 @ 11:34 am
Fred Thompson for many of the reasons stated. Additionally, I just plain out like him. Of course liking someone would not persuade me to vote for them, just as disliking someone would not dissuade me from voting.
Comment by Suzanne — 03.14.07 @ 11:39 am
Good question…
My only difference with our esteemed host is that I put more wieght on fiscal conservatisim than social issues (not much mind you). So of the officaial canidates right now it would either be Mitt or Rudy. If Hillaryco wins then to me Rudy has the best shot of beating her. If Obama wins then it may not matter. If Fred Thompson runs then I would seriously consider him, and I would also look closely at Tancredo.
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.14.07 @ 11:40 am
1.) Fred Thompson - until I find out something that would be a deal breaker for me.
Thompson has the charisma and media power to become national “buzz.” Tancredo and Hunter can not get the national face time they need to get known and to win.
2.) Third party candidates are “spoilers” for at least one of the parties. Voting for a third party candidate elects the party you most want to see lose. It happened to the Republicans when Teddy Roosevelt did it, it happened to the Democrats when John Anderson did it and it happened to the Republicans when Ross Perot did it. Many Democrats say it happened to them again when Ralph Nader did it.
If I must, I will hold my nose and vote against Hillary, Barack or John of Silky Mane. That means I would vote for—-even — McQueeg.
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.14.07 @ 11:40 am
McQueeg. Yes, but what about the strawberries? Was there actually a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox?
Comment by RedBeard — 03.14.07 @ 11:47 am
1) Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson or Newt Gringrich would be my first, second and third choices. Duncan Hunter I just don’t know enough about his positions at this time. Milt Romney I am not completely comfortable with. Rudi Gulliani is to weak on too many of the positions I care about. John McCain I absolutely despise, I personally would not vote him dog catcher of Podunk.
2) Depending on who got the nomination I might vote for the republican candidate or I might write in Patrick J Buchanan. If McCain gets the republican nomination I will not vote republican regardless of who gets the democratic nomination.
Comment by James — 03.14.07 @ 12:04 pm
Tancredo, Gingrich, Thompson, Hunter would get my vote.
Tancredo for his anti-illegal immigration/border inforcement/anti-jihadi stance. Not afraid of saying it like it is whether it is illegals or douchebag liberals or islamonazis.
Gingrich for his ideas that helped bring about welfare reform.
Thompson because he is everything I am - pro-life, pro-military, pro-America, language, borders, culture, pro-second amendment.
But I would vote for anyone over Hillbillery. She is marxist, corrupt, and evil, in my opinion.
Comment by Ann — 03.14.07 @ 12:56 pm
#23
…”If McCain gets the republican nomination I will not vote republican regardless of who gets the democratic nomination.”…
McCain makes my skin crawl too. He can’t be trusted. Very much in the democrat camp.
But, Clinton, I despise.
If those two are on the ticket, who do you choose between ‘worse’ and ‘worser’?
Comment by Ann — 03.14.07 @ 12:59 pm
Heh. I love Thomas Sowell. Too bad he isn’t running. He would give democrats hemorrhages. Here is Sowell’s take on Newt Gingrich -
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2JmYjg2ZWM4NzM1NTNmN2I2OTdjMGI5N2U2MjM0NWE=
Comment by Ann — 03.14.07 @ 1:04 pm
Hashman said:
President Fred Thompson
Vice President J.C. Watts
Comment by RedBeard — 03.14.07 @ 1:10 pm
MK took the words out of my mouth: “Abortion and gay marriage debates won’t do any good if a dirty bomb goes off.” I can’t tell you how annoying it was to hear about gay marriage ad nauseum in the last election from BOTH conservatives and liberals, while I was sitting in Jerusalem never knowing when the next bomb was going to go off in a bus or cafe. Americans need to realize that 9/11 was just the beginning; more terrorism is coming your way.
With that in mind, and because America is still my mother country and I love her, it’s Guilliani for me.
Comment by batyah — 03.14.07 @ 1:23 pm
Red, that is hilarious, I had not even thought about it that way. Normally you can put up one candidate that would do well against all the candidates from the other side but this election is different. If Hillaryco wins the nomination then the Republicans had better have someone with more star power then Hillaryco and at the LEAST is good on national security and is fiscally conservative. If Obama wins the nomination then we need a good solid conservative because Hillaryco can get single women who normally don’t vote to vote and that can tip the balance to her side. That really scares me.
Guliani for all his shortcomings can overcome that (hillaryco and the woman vote) due to how he handled 9/11, couple that with the fact he is not involved with Iraq directly (so the left can’t use that weapon) and his record of reducing crime and welfare ect… and I could live with that choice.
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.14.07 @ 1:28 pm
At this point in my life, I am cynical (beyond help) towards ALL politicians, a profession I view as having evolved to being one of the lowest forms of human endeavor.
Now, after sugar coating that point of view, in my perfect scenario, no politician is worthy of the presidency. So for me, that would leave it for someone like, say………..LaShawn Barber.
Comment by Dave in AZ — 03.14.07 @ 1:32 pm
If I were to vote for a Republican, at this point the only one of that pack I like is Duncan Hunter. I detailed some reasons why I like him in this post.
Romney’s Mormonism is an issue and I detail why in this post. Also, in that post I link to other posts I’ve made that PROVE Mitt Romney selects his political position based on the office he is running for. He realized he was “pro-life” when he noticed it polled well. Just like he said he would NEVER turn from being an advocate for allowing abortion when he was running for offices where that helped him win. In fact, out of all those Republicans running, Mitt Romney is the MOST dishonest of the bunch.
Ultimately, I figure one of the top 3 Liberals (McCain, Romney and Giuliani) running as Republicans will get the nomination and I’ll vote for somebody outside of the 2 major parties. Maybe the Constitution Party will have a good candidate, or maybe somebody else good will come along. I’d vote for a Constitution Party candidate before any of those top 3 Republicans. Right now, General Pace is looking good if we can draft him
.
Comment by IndependentConservative — 03.14.07 @ 1:36 pm
If it were McCain vs Hillary- or McCain vs Obama or Edwards even, I’d vote McCain.
He may be mean. He may despise his own. And I would do a lot of kicking and screaming, let me tell ya, but it’d be a LOT better than the alternative.
Comment by jewels — 03.14.07 @ 1:48 pm
As MA Republicans for Truth are trying to educate people, Romney might as well be Kerry, except he is pandering to a different section of the populace. He will flop so fast it’ll give you whiplash if he gets the nomination. He is not what he says he is and far too many are buying his facade. Do not vote for anyone who manages to get elected in a state-wide Massachusetts election.
My ideal candidate basically looks a lot like yours, La Shawn, and I have yet to see him.
Comment by ycw — 03.14.07 @ 2:37 pm
Oh, did not answer the full question.
I will not, ever, vote for someone who is not pro-life. I will vote write-in or “None of the above” first.
Comment by ycw — 03.14.07 @ 2:52 pm
Ycw, what if the Republican candidate has a poor record on the abortion issue, but the Democrat has a far worse record? Seems like the prudent thing to do there is to vote for the lesser evil.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.14.07 @ 3:13 pm
I think I will second #30– “La Shawn Barber for president!”
Comment by ycw — 03.14.07 @ 3:14 pm
RedBeard, why not vote for neither the Demo or Repub if there are other candidates who are better overall?
Comment by IndependentConservative — 03.14.07 @ 3:53 pm
IC, that’s a good hypothetical, but in real life a serious third party candidate has often gummed up the works. Look what we got when Ross Perot was in the mix; 8 years of Clinton. I don’t want to take that chance again.
Now if a nut like Ralph Nader wants to run, that’s fine. It will only hurt the opposition.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.14.07 @ 4:02 pm
RedBeard said:
IC, that’s a good hypothetical, but in real life a serious third party candidate has often gummed up the works.
Would you have said the same words when the Republican party was starting out and hoping to get voters to elect their candidates?
No pain, no gain my friend
.
Comment by IndependentConservative — 03.14.07 @ 4:45 pm
RedBeard,
Why did you bring that up? Huh. I mean the key thing. You know something, don’t you! Yeh, your beard isn’t red, its the strawberry juice. I have never trusted you with the way you try to look me in the eye and all.
McQueeg.
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.14.07 @ 4:45 pm
Now where have I put my ball bearings……
Comment by RedBeard — 03.14.07 @ 5:12 pm
I don’t have time to explain all the whys, but I’m for Mike Huckabee.
http://www.explorehuckabee.com
I’m sure I don’t agree with him on EVERYTHING, but at this point he’s in the lead in my book.
Comment by Keer — 03.14.07 @ 6:08 pm
Ann,
At this point I would not rule out a strong 3rd party candidate..It is possible that I will see the emergence of a strong 3rd party in my lifetime. The conditions are certainly right for it.
But that said if it came down to Clinton or McCain and no strong 3 rd party candidate I would simply write in my choice. Those who claim that voting outside of the two parties is a wasted vote have their opinion and I have mine. I will and always have voted for the candidate that most fit my own position.
Comment by James — 03.14.07 @ 6:12 pm
jc watts won’t run although it would be way cool if he did (he said on hannity’s radio program that he won’t run).
imagine rush on the ticket. i think you’d really see the left’s true colors since he’s been sticking it to them for close to 20 years.
Comment by thomas — 03.14.07 @ 6:46 pm
Rush is too polarizing to make an effective VP canidate. And things are polarized enough already…
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.14.07 @ 7:19 pm
I admire Tancredo, but he can’t win a Presidental election.
It’s the Arnold syndrome.
You go with the guy that can actually win an election.
And we all know that’s Giuliani. You don’t have to like his particular ideology. But, if you want a Republican to win a Presidental election…then you’ll vote for him.
La Shawn, Giuliani cleaned up New York, and this was before 9/11. He was tough on crime—which is the most important social issue. If crime isn’t dealt with, nothing else matters.
Yes, I know, we are talking about the “ideal” candidate….in a perfect world.
….But, I still say the “ideal” candidate is one that can actually win a Presidental election.
Comment by Glamchild — 03.14.07 @ 7:25 pm
I love this blog as much for the comments as I do for the quintessential hostess…who is taking a hiatus from blogging…::sniff::
Seriously, I love the convos via comments. You guys rock.
Comment by Suzanne — 03.14.07 @ 8:03 pm
Until Fred Thompson started making rumblings of running I despaired of having any enthusiasm for a Republican candidate, or even thinking of returning to the Republican party (I guess I’m now a RINO, but of the conservative type). Fred Thompson is intriguing. [KA-CHUNNNNNNNNGGG] (Sorry — my best imitation of the Law and Order sounder).
Comment by Mike — 03.14.07 @ 11:44 pm
To me, people that say they would have no problem voting for the right Jew sound mighty funny saying that a Christian family values Mormon is religiously unacceptable to them and they’d never vote for one.
The “boutique” candidates like Al Sharpton, Robertson, Trancredo, Ron Paul, Kuchinich, Rush LImbaugh allow ideologues to sound all pure and such about their Saint…but serious discussion should be limited to serious candidates.
McCain is fast talking himself out of any consideration as a camera-loving, egomaniacal opportunist who has no true principled beliefs beyond his still unwavering support for Iraq. He is just untrustworthy. You can easily see him getting in and appointed Hillary to SCOTUS and proclaiming it “principled bipartisanship”, and I don’t like how every Senator is “My Good Friend” to old Johnny.
Rudy, I like because he is competent, but I don’t know how he will do outside NYC with his abrasive NYC manner, and he has plenty of skeletons in his closet.
I like Mike Huchabee of Arkansas and Democrat Richardson. I like Obama but see him as too liberal and too green.
I think that after years of incompetent leadership, with America facing a multitude of crisises far past just Iraq and “terrahist evildoers” (Think of the 50 trillion in unfunded Medicare/SS liabilities, the 40% larger Fed Government, rising crime and racial tension, China destroying us in every economic field and America loosing in the education, technology, competiveness race - plus the loss of Russia as a neutral or even possible friend back to an enemy.
And a sense that domestically, no failing program is fixable by present leadership, no large disaster can be coped with….
That means to me, that 2008 will not be about Nutroots or Religious Right dreams over gay marriage, etc. but about competence and leadership.
That leaves the Dems with Hillary and Richardson. Republicans with Giuliani, Gingrich, and Romney.
3 have genius, or near genius IQs…Romney, Hillary and Newt. (historically? Jefferson, Madison, Nixon, and Clinton were our brightest) Herbert Hoover was a genius as an engineer and logistician, but his brains did not transfer into other fields, well.
All 5 have solid records of accomplishment. Dark horses like Huckabee, Haley Barbour Biden have solid records of achievemnent.
Romney is the best of the Republican choices, IMO. Richardson the best Dem. 2008 would have been a wonderful time for Jeb Bush, but for the fact his brother got the ball and did a face-plant - making Jeb unelectable. Unfair as heck, but that’s life.
Comment by Chris Ford — 03.15.07 @ 5:00 am
Chris, I don’t see McCain as being untrustworthy (in a devious sense) so much as being unpredictable, uncentered, and not in control of his own emotions. I believe he’s an honorable man, one who has served his country and suffered greatly, but those are not qualifications for the White House. He can do his country, and himself, the most good by simply fading away.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.15.07 @ 8:30 am
I dont like McCain, Guiliani or Romney.
Who’s reppin the South?
Tancredo talks too much, I dont like him much. His ideals are great on paper, but make no sense in the real world. I doubt he’ll get the nomination.
I would not vote for any of the front running republican candidates this time around.
I would vote for Sam Brownback though. Evangelical Christian, anti-abortion…thats my guy.
I was hoping our governor would run, Democrat Mike Easley.
I think a conservative Southern Democrat could run circles around anyone.
I would looove to see a conservative black southern democrat run. Unfortunately, they have as much chance as a black conservative republican.
Comment by lukeNC — 03.15.07 @ 9:02 am
Romney is my first choice of Republicans. Being a Mormon doesn’t bother me. Yes, he has changed his mind on several social issues, but he’s changed them in the right way. People will change their mind based on their experiences. I have. Furthermore, he’s the only major candidate that has the right position on illegal immigration. However, I fear the media has already killed his chances.
I would never vote for Obama. He support partial birth abortion and I cannot support anyone who does and so I guess that nixes Guiliani too. I don’t like McCain on illegal immigration. I don’t like Edwards who is the darling of the ultra far left. Sam Brownback is known as Sam “amnesty” Brownback so he’s out. Hillary - well I think she’s a strong candidate but I don’t trust her. Who the heck is Fred Thompson?
I know I have to vote, but dang it’s going to be hard in 2008.
Comment by dianne — 03.15.07 @ 9:43 am
I am more interested in Condi Rice, John Bolton, or Fred Thompson than any of the current candidates, but I would vote for any Republican over any Dem with the possible exception of Bill Richardson
Comment by Don Singleton — 03.15.07 @ 11:43 am
Don,
If you help elect Bill Richardson, don’t forget that you also get everyone who “brung him to the dance.”
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.15.07 @ 2:17 pm
I disagree more with the positions Giuliani has taken, yet I’d almost be more comfortable voting for him if I *had* to than for McCain. I agree that McCain is unpredictable. I don’t like Giuliani’s liberal social positions, though.
I could handle a Romney, Tancredo, Thompson…as long as it’s not McCain or Giuliani, I will feel pretty satisfied casting a Republican vote. My husband has said in no uncertain terms that he *will not* vote for either of them, and I tend to agree, but we may change our minds based on who the Democratic candidate is.
There’s always the Constitution Party, but I do hate to “throw my vote away.”
Comment by Susannah — 03.15.07 @ 3:13 pm
I wonder what would happen if Obama did a Mitt Romney and switched his position on abortion?
That would be interesting.
Comment by lukeNC — 03.15.07 @ 3:38 pm