I am uncommitted and pro-life.
I look at McCain as the censor of pro-lifers (McCain-Feingold) in political campaigns and totally unacceptable for that alone.
Ron Paul’s anti-war Bush bashing does nothing for me.
The vote in Iowa and New Hampshire (I live in PA and probably won’t have to make this decision for my primary) comes down to either a principled vote for Hunter, Tancredo, Huckabee or a tactical vote to keep Rudy from winning.
The obvious tactical vote based on the polling data at this point is Mitt Romney.
In South Carolina it may be Fred Thompson right now but I’m still trying to figure him out. Is he there to divide votes or be a stalking horse for someone else?
Is that why he’s been “lackluster” in his campaigning?
I like Rudy a lot but his praise of McCain makes me wonder if the deal is to make McCain VP (and good old boy Thompson who supported McCain-Feingold is in there to split conservative votes to give Rudy the win).
I’m pure speculation at this point and analytical.
I do tend to vote principled instead of tactical so I would be hard presssed personally to vote for Mitt.
But honestly it looks like the options for you folks in Iowa and New Hampshire come down to what I described before.
Let's not swallow the "lackluster" label.
Do we really prefer candidates that yell and gesture and pontificate and point as if that will make what they have to say more believable and that that's the only way they can make we the sheeple understand? Have we been hypnotized to that extent?
I prefer someone who simply talks to us like we were adults and can understand what they say without yelling and pointing at us.
It's the dictator personality that screams and points - think Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Clinton...
An honest person does not have to resort to such histrionics
Is that why he’s been “lackluster” in his campaigning?
I'm afraid that what Thompson will do is guarantee that Giuliani is the candidate.