Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Were you a Fredhead?
Judging from the blog-specific straw poll data, a significant plurality of TigerHawk readers were supporters of Fred Thompson. Dr. Rusty Shackleford makes the case that Mitt Romney is your best second choice. He may well be right.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Jan 22, 11:49:00 PM:
I was and now I'm at a complete loss. Romney turns me off - too artificial, too contrived. The others all have what appear to be fatal flaws, though Huckabee is the the only one that would drive me to vote for Hillary or Obama or sit it out.
By , at
Tue Jan 22, 11:56:00 PM:
An African-American will be elected before a Mormon. But we have a legitimate war hero who voted against the Bush tax cuts and the excesses that will be blamed for the current recession (record low interest rates with tax cuts for the wealthy).
McCain may also end this silly nonesense of legacy Presidents (w., now threatening Hilary) and allow the country to move on in four years to its next (younger) generation of political leaders.
By 
Who Struck John, at
Wed Jan 23, 12:08:00 AM:
I'm looking at McCain as the least bad of several bad options. Which means that the Republican Party will probably choose Romney, because our elections tend to be about choosing the worst two candidates and then fighting over them ...
By , at
Wed Jan 23, 08:24:00 AM:
Official headstone.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed Jan 23, 09:04:00 AM:
I'll probably vote Romney now. Huck is a Dem claiming to be a Republican, IMO. I can't trust McCain on illegal immigration - I think he still wants to give amnesty, then there was also McCain-Feingold. Guiliani? Poor judge of character re: Bernie Kerik, views on gun control (& I'm not even a gun owner). Now, I'd really get behind him if he selected Thompson as his VP.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed Jan 23, 09:05:00 AM:
By , at
Wed Jan 23, 11:04:00 AM:
I went into this cycle with an open mind, but leaning toward Fred and Rudy, willing to listen to Mitt, not too favorable toward McCain, very hostile to Brownback.
As the campaign unfolded, I was recently ready to walk over hot coals to vote for Fred, disappointed in Mitt, nursing a few concerns about Rudy's temperament and people management skills, and hostile to the very thought of Huckabee (I know firsthand how corrupt Arkansas power structures are).
So the choices are a protest vote for Fred, shift of allegiance to Rudy (with some wariness), or just bag it and not vote and let either McCain or Romney come out on top, however it plays out. No good choices.
By , at
Wed Jan 23, 12:20:00 PM:
It scares me that the "serious" candidates are Senators. Are we really interseted in merging the Legislative and Executive branches of our government?
By , at
Wed Jan 23, 09:02:00 PM:
Senators have run for President as a matter of course for a long time, Anonymous.
I favor Guiliani and McCain, in that order. I'm a moderate on social issues and well versed enough in the workings of government to realize that all the talk about "he's going to raise/lower taxes, open/close the border, protect/strip gun rights," et cetera is so much blustering. Those are not Presidential powers. At best, they could argue and leverage in favor of such policies, or veto them. The conduct of warfare and foreign policy are Presidential powers, and I'd trust Guiliani or McCain to pursue those tasks the best.
Added bonus for Giuliani; he could carry New York in the general election. He's also the only one in the bunch who I believe really has an inkling of what we're up against in the war on terror.
Point against McCain; I'm afraid his knee jerk 'torture is bad!' instinct will handicap our intelligence agencies.
