[padre35]

“...I would vote for...”

Same here, on purely analytical grounds, Mitt is behind Thompson, and ahead of Rudy and McCain IMO.

If Thompson flairs out, then Mitt is my back up guy, he compromises too much for my taste, but he also isn’t hostile to issues that I care about unlike Rudy and McCain, both of whom are 2nd amendment poison.

[Vigilanteman]

Romeny and Thompson are running about even for my second choice. Duncan Hunter remains my first.

Fred's advantages:

1. Generally decent voting record during 8 years in the senate except for letting Clinton skate on one charge and supporting Soros-sponsored campaign finance reform.
   
2. Somewhat better name recognition. More people watch Law and Order than remember the 2002 Olympics or the ex-governor of Massachusetts.
   
3. Would probably play better to the southern base . . . but against Hitlery, even RINO Rudy would carry the south.
   
4. Great looking wife who is also very smart. In fact, from what I've seen of her on television, I'm more impressed with her than Fred.
   
5. Nonetheless, Fred does a respectable job of articulating vision.
   
6. Good track record outside government. Has had a successful law career and a successful acting career. Nobody has three successful careers in three different fields by being lazy.

Mitt's Advantages:

1. A self-made multi-millionaire. He didn't inherit it (like Ted Kennedy). He didn't get it by gaming the system (like George Soros). He didn't acquire it by selling out to foreign interests (like Barbara Boxer) or well-placed government connections (like Harry Reid). He earned it through old-fashioned hard work, risk taking and entrepreneuralship. We could use a few more people like that in government.
   
2. His record in elective office, a mere four years, while not sterling, is at lease commendable considering he was elected from the most lieberal state in the union. He pulled their economy out of the crapper with sound economic policies.
   
3. His better hair is likely to attact more female voters than Fred's lack of hair.
   
4. Great work ethic. He's campaigning like he has to earn the nomination, not like he's entitled to it.
   
5. Flip-flopping statements notwithstanding, Romney's action record is actually fairly respectable.
   
6. He would do very well in any debates with Hitlery the queen. While I would prefer the hard-hitting style of Fred to put her in her place, the witty charm of Mitt will probably play better to the female portion of the audience.

At this point, I could seriously and enthusiastically support either guy for president. The one thing seriously lacking in both their backgrounds, however, is military experience. Such experience is a must in the war on terror. Absent such experience, the candidate needs to demonstrate a serious understanding of military affairs and the need to appoint someone (like Duncan Hunter) who would make up for this resume gap.

This is the only key area where McCain comes out ahead. But he is so bad on other key issues (CFR, amnesty) that I could not consider him or Rudi.