It really has been mortifying [1] to watch The National Review going supine for nothing but the value of winning the next election. That they would endorse Mitt Romney is just pathetic, and a glaring sign of the times. Kathryn Jean Lopez should be ashamed of herself, but she’s too dizzy for that and there is nothing to be done for it. Stupid fools: that’s all there is to it.
That’s Billy Beck [2] last night. I understand where he’s coming from, and I sympathize with him, but I wonder if the pragmatism that National Review is showing us, here, isn’t justified. My read is that they’ve written off Thompson. I haven’t.
(Sigh) OK, here we go… I guess it’s time I stood up and got counted. In doing this, I want to explain my thinking, so bear with me, here.
Personally, I would much prefer Fred Thompson, get the nomination, and I’ve made no bones about that. Barring that most pleasant of possibilities, however, I began to wonder if Romney isn’t going to be the best choice beyond the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Let’s imagine then, that for some reason Fred Thompson does not yet the nomination (His winning the nomination certainly seems an open question at this point at least) At that point, we end up in a situation not unlike what we ran into with the initial nomination of George W. Bush back in 2000. I said at the time and have been saying repeatedly since the Bush is not a conservative that I wished he would be. Then again, given his track record, and that of his father, I held no illusions about the matter.
As back in 2000 than we find ourselves in a situation of voting for the candidate who will do the least damage. Someone of those still standing, who, while not the first choice, will do the agenda of the right the least amount of damage.
First, I won’t go anywhere near Duncan Hunter, one of the gang of 14, and in truth, not a factor anyway. I could have almost dealt with him, (I initially supported him last February) were it not for that gang of 14 business. Same goes for John McCain. The gang of 14 business, in combo with his overt liberalism, totally disqualifies him. Hagel’s a flake, and no factor. I’ve spoken often enough about Ron Paul to get something of a reputation for it. You know where I stand there. I want the man nowhere near the White House… even a White House tour line, much less holding the Oval Office. Given the relative standing of these people in the polls it would appear that my judgment is not unique in that area.
Then, there’s Mike Huckabee. Where to begin with this one?
The man has all the liberalism of John McCain wrapped up in a holier than thou attitude that I find reminiscent of John Kerry…. and unappealing of itself. When taken as a package, I suggest to you that there are very few candidates for any office in the country who are as unlikeable as a candidate, and unattractive, in terms of furthering the cause of freedom. Living in an upstairs apartment over a Fish market holds greater allure. How he can call himself a Republican is something of a mystery to me. Then again, look at McCain.
This is not to say that Huckabee doesn’t have his personal attractions. He most certainly does. Every report I have ever heard of him, suggested he is a charming individual in person… So is Bill Clinton. When considering a candidate for president, the man’s personal likability is not in my first three considerations. I find Huckabee’s foreign policy, clueless to the point where any one of the Democrats could do better…. and on domestic policy, you can’t fit water between Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton. No wonder the press likes him.
Anyway, so as far as the Republican side goes, that leaves us three choices in my view.
- Fred Thompson.
- Mitt Romney.
- Rudy Giuliani
I want to explain to you what I’m thinking of these three at this point.
I’ve made no secret that I’m with Fred. On every issue that gets brought up, Fred’s position is by far the one I would choose. But given the politics, we must consider a fallback position, if Fred doesn’t get the nomination. I must base these choices on the biggest issues of the day, and I’ve chosen what I feel are the top three.
1:Islamic terrorism
Not to speak for Billy here, but my perception of his position is that such a “Better of three evils” choice is altogether unacceptable. I would counter that argument by saying that the specter of having an Al Gore in the White House and planes flying into the World Trade Center used to gruesome a prospect to consider. For all of the complaints coming from the left about a “never-ending war” I submit that with Al Gore as president on September 12, 2000 we would’ve started a real never-ending war. One a hell of a lot more Americans, particularly American civilians, would have died in As it stands right now, with George W. Bush in the White House, we actually stand a chance of not only coming away with a victory, but a workable peace thereby. that’s an equation, the Democrats have never figured out, and so are disqualified from my list immediately, all of them at a swoop. This then is the first consideration in my support of a presidential candidate.
You see, I am not one who thinks that once we withdraw from Iraq we are going to be completely safe from Islamic terrorists. Thus for the next several elections of least the possibility of attack against us, must be high on the list of considerations in selecting a candidate for president, and ultimately a president. Certainly none of the Democratic party candidates possess the stones that I would want in a leader. Under those circumstances my choices would include Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in that order, with Romney and Giuliani being more or less tied for second.
2: At that point we go down the list a little, and start looking at the remaining concerns…namely, domestic concerns, most notably spending, taxes, and the reduction of government. Certainly, here again, Fred Thompson shines in those areas far brighter than either of the other two that Romney comes a distant second, with Rudy Giuliani trailing him, but not by much. Both Romney and Giuliani are far too wedded to big government programs for my taste. that said, they still look somewhat better than any of the Democrat candidates.
3: Finally we come to the issue of border control. Fred Thompson stands head and shoulders above the other two here, as well. Frankly, I am most bothered by Giuliani on this issue, not by what he’s saying currently, but by the actions he’s taken in the past as the mayor of a city with a large population of illegals. I am somewhat less nonplussed by what I see of Romney, in this area.
As a bonus round, we come to electability.
Certainly, there are those who will suggest that Fred Thompson is not centrist enough (or frankly, liberal enough) to be elected president of the United States in the general election. I don’t agree. I remind you of them saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan. I am firmly convinced that if the Republican Party has the courage to go through with nominating Mr. Thompson that he’ll will be elected as Regan was, and for the same reasons. The reasons are simple enough; primarily among them: A real conservative can easily break down liberal dogma. Ronald Reagan proved that easily. It’s called standing for something.
That said we come to the other two. As with all the other considerations that I’ve listed here. Romney and Giuliani come fairly close to each other with Romney in my view having a slight edge.as others have noted, there are a number of people who will cross party lines to vote for one or the other. And that’s fine. Whether or not it’s going to be enough to overcome the Democratic challenger, remains to be seen. But if it comes to it, I’ll vote for them, despite being uncomfortable with both of them on matters of policy in some areas. They’re still a better choice than Hillary Clinton, or her clone, Barack Obama.
So, with these considerations in mind, I hereby heartily endorse Fred Thompson for President.
That endorsement made, I will say that Mitt Romney, and or Rudy Giuliani would make an acceptable second choice. I will add that I hope I’m not forced into that choice.