The Order

[Allen In Texas Hill Country]

Thought I'd post my order of repubo candidates.

Thompson

The absolutely most NO non-nonsense guy we have that comes with solid conservative credentials.

McCain

I really, really like McCain too. He would make an absolutely fantastic prez in light of the war. Only reason I put him #2 is that he kinda stomped on the 1st amendment and went in the wrong direction with immigration.

Giuliani, Romney

To me they seem kinda the same except one comes with a church. Not that that bothers me in the least.

Hunter, Tancredo

They fall into the same mold too but just don't have the national structure to get anywhere.

Huckabee

I suppose he was a fine preacher and maybe an adequate guv but his priorities don't fit my conservative mold/needs.

Paul

Nothing constructive to say about his presidential ambitions/qualifications. Otherwise I would assume he's a fine person.

[Allen In Texas Hill Country]

Crud,,,, forgot the html for paragraphs and blank lines.

[Graybeard58]

Crud,,,, forgot the html for paragraphs and blank lines.

Worse things have happened, it looks fine to me.

[i_dont_chat]

Mine — today:

Thompson
Hunter
Tancredo
Romney
McCain
Huckabee
Giuliani
Paul

[ClearCase_guy]

I like your order.

[WFTR]

This list really should be in something other than News/Activism. You've posted a vanity. That's okay, but a vanity isn't exactly news.

Otherwise, I have to worry about someone who would leave a candidate in second place after admitting that the candidate stomped on the First Amendment. Some of us believe that the First Amendment is important, and a candidate who stomps on the Constitution isn't going to be high on our list. Furthermore, Fred Thompson was also a big supporter of campaign finance reform, so both your first and second candidates have stomped on the First Amendment. That alone keeps Mr. Thompson from being a "no nonsense conservative" in my book.

If you want to vote for Fred Thompson, that's fine. Personally, I'd rather vote for Duncan Hunter but may drop down to Mitt Romney because I'm no longer optimistic about Duncan Hunter being in the race when the primary comes to Louisiana. I prefer Mitt Romney's record of success as an executive over anything that the other candidates offer. When all is said and done, he's likely to be just as conservative as Fred Thompson in the way that he governs.

Bill

[lepton]

I really, really like McCain too. He would make an absolutely fantastic prez in light of the war. Only reason I put him #2 is that he kinda stomped on the 1st amendment and went in the wrong direction with immigration.

Quite apart from any positions he has, McCain's temperment is completely unsuitable. There is a reason that no one who had worked for him supported him when he ran in 2000. Add in previous bouts of corruption, and his response to his wife's forging prescriptions, and you've got a real mess.

[roamer_1]

Here’s my order:

Duncan Hunter
Duncan Hunter
Duncan Hunter
Tom Tancredo

[Sonora]

Hunter, Tancredo

Just don’t have a national personality.

[ChocChipCookie]

I haven’t really thought about ranking my preferences, but here’s what I have off the top of my head.

Thompson
Romney
Giuliani
McCain
Huckabee
Paul

I know I left out Hunter and Tancredo, but I can’t see either of them getting much further than where they are now. I think a Romney/Thompson ticket would be great.

[ansel12]

“When all is said and done, he’s likely to be just as conservative as Fred Thompson in the way that he governs.”

---

Here are two current positions that Romney will not renounce. Guns, and gays in the military.

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

” One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”

[Allen In Texas Hill Country]

Guess I’ve heard before about his temperment, but didn’t know about the wife. Still in this time of war I’d feel absolutely sure that he would do what it takes.

[Allen In Texas Hill Country]

Guess I didn’t mean to post in News/Activism. Try and be more careful next time.

I really do like to read others opinions on the repubo candidates and that was the purpose of the list.

If liquidating my paltry retirement savings (which I’m living on) would put Hunter in the White House I might give it serious consideration. But I feel just as comfortable with Thompson unless some substantial flaw is uncovered.

[lepton]

but didn’t know about the wife.

It's not that he is responsible for her forgery. It's that he responded by firing the guy who found out (whose pharm ID she was using), and then hiring a PR firm to vilify the guy.

[knarf]

Crud?

I haven't heard that in 50 years.

[WFTR]

If liquidating my paltry retirement savings (which I’m living on) would put Hunter in the White House I might give it serious consideration. But I feel just as comfortable with Thompson unless some substantial flaw is uncovered.

We all make mistakes with posting vanities, but I would try to keep these kinds of vanities in the General/Chat section.

If you're happy voting for Fred Thompson, I'm not going to attack that choice. Personally, I am less comfortable with him over campaign finance reform, the Clinton impeachment vote, and the Lautenberg gun ban. I'm not saying that these actions make him a liberal or a RINO, but they make me see him as no better than Mitt Romney. Once I see the two of them as roughly even in terms of conservatism, Mitt Romney's executive experience makes him much more likely to do well as president. In any case, make sure that you do vote in the primary. I'd rather see Fred Thompson get another vote than to see Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani win a close race in your district.

Bill

[WFTR]

Mitt Romney's support of the assault weapons ban bothers me tremendously. If he hadn't taken that position, he'd surpass Duncan Hunter as my favorite candidate.

However, I see that position as no worse than Fred Thompson's support of the Lautenberg gun ban. The Fred Thompson supporters try to dismiss this ban as something that keeps "wife-beaters" from owning guns. However, people who engage in serious domestic violence are already prohibited from owning guns because serious domestic violence is a felony offense. More and more prosecutors are trying to convict people of felonies for any action that has hints of domestic violence. Lautenberg wasn't needed to keep these people from owning guns.

The Lautenberg ban extended the prohibition to people convicted of misdemeanors. A simple push could be enough to deny someone his (or her) Second Amendment rights forever. I'm not saying that anyone should be proud of an argument that leads to any kind of pushing, but I don't believe that these situations should lead to loss of Second Amendment rights. As much as I hate the assault weapons ban, I'd rather have my choices of guns limited than for gun-grabbers to take another step towards extending the classes of people not allowed to own guns.

Again, the point is not that Mr. Romney is good on the issue and Fred Thompson is bad. The point is that I can't see either of them as being everything that I want and don't see either of them as being everything that I don't want. In that situation, I lean towards Mr. Romney because of his executive experience.

Bill

[lesser_satan]

Thompson
Hunter/Tancredo
Romney/McCain/Giuliani
Paul
Huckabee

[ansel12]

ROMNEY"“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” If you are going to try to compare one of the most pro-gun candidates in modern history to Mitt Romney, then you are working a little too hard to bend reality. The freshly ex-president of the NRA personally campaigned for Fred Thompson. ============================================================

[WFTR]

What year was that? I think it was 1996 or maybe even 1994, before the Lautenberg ban. I'm not bending any reality. The reality is that both Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney were generally gun-friendly in what they did in office. Mitt Romney was not as gun-friendly in his rhetoric on the campaign trail, but neither has that good or that bad a record.

Bill