A vote for Rudy is a slap in the face to values voters. A vote for Huck will lose in November. Fred has never won a primary and is not going to. The compromise is?
I think you answered your own question, by who you didn’t rule out ...
Like another poster claimed, it is like trying to choose diarrhea over vomiting.
The 'compromise' is to accept the real possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency and pray it's only for 4 years.
And say another prayer for the good health of Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter.
For me, the priority is keeping the Clintons out of power. I support Fred as well, but, let’s face it, he’s not going to win the nomination.
Everyone has their own “line in the sand.” Personally, I would find it very difficult to vote for McCain (thanks to his first-amendment Reform Bill, and general aura of psychological instability) or the Huckster (um... because he’s pretty damn stupid as WELL as a huckster), but I don’t believe EITHER of these guys has a chance of beating Hillary or Obama (which is exactly why they’re being pushed by the MSM as our “candidates of choice”).
Sorry, Ron Paul’s out. He makes John McCain look stable. Besides, if I want to support a whiny little girl I’ll pick one of the RATS.
That leaves Romney (a.k.a. Robo-candidate), and Rudy (a social liberal).
Oh, just GREAT. :-<.
The way it’s shaping up for ME, at the moment, is that I’ll vote for any of the above... even the ones I loathe, if it’s a question of keeping THAT SOULLESS CREATURE (and her husband) out of the White House. If the RAT nominee is Obama, I think I’ll sit this one out if Romney or Rudy isn’t our candidate, and let our party get what it deserves for foisting this bunch of losers on us in the first place.
Isn't a vote for Romney a slap in the face of value voters as well? Pro-abort. Published papers that were pro-homosexual. I don't think I can go that route either.
If McCain wins the nomination, he's going to face the general election without the support of many conservatives--of all stripes--whom he has actively stabbed in the back over the last eight years.
If Huckabee wins the nomination, he'll get some social conservative support, but will not get support from those who are concerned about immigration or fiscal policy.
If Giuliani wins the nomination, he probably won't get much support from any conservatives. He'll court the support of crossover Democrats, and may get some.
If Romney wins the nomination, he'll get the support of fiscal conservatives. I think he'd also get some support--albeit begrudging support--from RKBA and pro-life conservatives, since he's trying to position himself as significantly less evil than the Democrats. He might lose support from voters who can't stand Mormonism, however.
Fred Thompson does have some problems winning people over, but all of the other candidates have huge disadvantages of their own. I can see Mitt Romney managing to keep at least begrudging support of most conservatives, but any of the other candidates are going to lose a large part of the base. Will they make up for that loss of support with superior campaigning skills? Conceivable I guess, but I wouldn't bank on it.
IMHO, best case scenario would be for Romney to join with Thompson and use his campaign skills to get Thompson into the presidency with himself as VP. If he were to do that for Thompson, I think that would allay many of the fears people have about his conservatism, and would leave him well positioned for 2012.