(Note: The discussion initiated by Mr. Auster's question on supporting a top tier candidate has been moved here.)
Just on a quick roundup of the relatively few blogs that I frequent, I note that all of them express a preference, or a pretty solid number one candidate for the presidency. While none of them, including this blog, seem to have a solid number two...
I'll start the roundup over at the AFB. Fellow AFBer Mike Tams seems to be leaning toward Mitt Romney as his second choice. He would probably prefer someone like Duncan Hunter to Romney, but Romney seems to appeal to Mike very much. I don't think Mike has totally committed himself to Romney as yet, but this seems to be the direction in which he is leaning.
Over at VFR, Lawrence Auster has repeatedly endorsed Tom Tancredo. In this recent VFR entry Auster mentions both Fred and Romney as preferable to Giuliani. But he doesn't tell us which of the two (Fred or Romney) he would prefer.
Meanwhile, VA has said many good things about Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. These two seem to be VA's top two candidates, but it's still a bit unclear in what order she would put them. I tend to think, from what I read at VA's, that she would place them in the order that I've placed them in the first sentence of this paragraph.
The Maritime Sentry strongly endorses the candidacy of Mike Huckabee. But I don't recall reading there an endorsement of a second choice or preference.
I'm not at all sure about Wise Man's Heart. I don't know whether Hermes has broached this topic or not. But I'll go check it out. (Hat tip to John Savage for reminding me of this post over at WMH, where Hermes expresses his like of Tancredo and Paul)
John Savage at Brave New World Watch is a strong supporter of Tom Tancredo. Don't miss his lengthy roundup of Tancredo related blog posts in his right sidebar. But like the rest of us, John has yet to name a second preference from the list of candidates.
And to complete the roundup, here at Webster's I've endorsed Tancredo on a number of occasions as my first choice. I've never said, however, who my second choice would be.
I don't think I can nail down a second choice just yet. I need to do a lot more research and reflection on the remaining candidates. I think Ron Paul is interesting, but at this point I don't think I could name him a second choice. Giuliani isn't even on my radar as someone I could ever cast a sacred vote for. And Fred doesn't rate much higher with me at this point than Giuliani. I don't think Fred can make up any ground with me either, but we'll see.
Basically I'm left to decide between Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul as secondary choices to Tom Tancredo. And like I said, I'm just going to have to commit to doing a lot more research on all three of these candidates.
In any event, I can say this. If Giuliani were to get the Republican nomination (which seems to be the general consensus at this point) I could not vote for the man. I would be forced to vote third party, or to write in a candidate. This is a scenario where someone like Ron Paul might actually get my vote. But if I were forced to write in a candidate, Tancredo not being on the ballot, then I would write in the name Tom Tancredo, and let the chips fall where they may.
9 comments:
Terry, I think I can state categorically that I would not actively support any candidate other than Tancredo, Hunter, or Paul. Hunter doesn't seem to be going anywhere, which is part of why I'm reconsidering Paul, who at least has a decent following. But all the others are for open borders, even if they're trying to retract their statements now. Considering what Auster has said about the fate of social conservatism under a RINO, I would follow the Auster/Dobson line and definitely not abet the election of any of the globalist/open-borders Republicans.
Whether I seriously consider voting third party may depend on whether I still live in a swing state and how close the race figures to be. Of course, if it's Tancredo, I'll probably feel like voting for him anyway. I am not optimistic about Tancredo running a third-party campaign, however. Ron Paul seems more likely to run one. If my vote obviously wasn't going to sway the election, I wouldn't hesitate to cast it for whatever conservative third-party candidate was on the ballot. But if it was close, well, I couldn't count out my old Machiavellian strategy.
Those are my thoughts.
In case Hermes doesn't get a chance to respond, he stated here that he prefers Tancredo, but likes Ron Paul as well.
John, great comments. If I get more to this thread of that quality I may move them to the body of the post and add some thoughts of my own.
Thank you for reminding me of Hermes's post on Ron Paul. I actually did read that, and the opening lines should have brought it to mind. I've added the link to the portion of the post concerning Hermes.
I agree with you on the Auster/Dobson line. Maybe we could call it the Auster/Dobson/Savage/Morris/whoever else wants to join line. ;)
-Terry
I'd like to ask Mr. Savage, Mr. Morris, and anyone else this question. What if one of the top tier candidates came out with a decent immigration policy—not everything we want, but decent? I define that as opposing amnesty absolutely, stopping illegal immigration, and no increase in legal immigration, or maybe even a reduction in legal immigration. Would you consider supporting such a candidate, even if he was not on board with you on other issues you cared about
By the way, I was surprised by, and am not in agreement with, James Dobson saying that Thompson's lack of support for the marriage amendment is a deal killer. For me, as I've argued many times, the amendment is absolutely indispensable. But (1) lots of people, including many paleocons, do not support the amendment, and (2) the president is not involved constitutionally in the amendment process. For Dobson to make support for the amendment his absolute test for supporting a candidate struck me as stronge.
If I saw a candidate who was not on board on the marriage amendment and other social conservative issues , but took a significant position on immigration, I would certainly consider supporting him.
Mr. Auster, good questions. They get right to the heart of what will ultimately determine whether I end up supporting a top tier GOP candidate or not.
With regard to Dobson's position on the FMA, I did a blog post recently concerning it in which I took a position similar to your's yet for a different reason altogether. I disagree that the FMA is indispensable, but would rather see the States create their own marriage amendments. Notwithstanding that, if a top tier candidate took a Dobsonian position on the FMA, that would not be a deal breaker for me. As you said, the president is not involved constitutionally in the amendment process, so if the candidate in question took a position favoring the FMA, that would not bother me. For the record, I believe that when Bush took that position calling on Congress to pass the FMA it helped to get the States talking about the question at that level. One of Bush's finer moments in my opinion, even if it was dumb luck.
On the question of whether I'd consider supporting a top tier candidate who took a decent position on immigration (by your definition), I'd have to answer that in the affirmative. In fact, such a candidate taking such a position on immigration, as long as he wasn't too far out there on other important issues would become very attractive to me. But I'd have to really weigh his position against his record as well as his character and integrity before I committed to supporting him.
Do you know of anyone who fits this bill, that you believe would stick to this policy once elected?
-Terry
Terry, I think you've raised the question that occurs to me: would any of the top tier candidates be likely to actually honor a promise to control our borders, reject amnesty, etc.? I would find it hard to believe that any of them, given their past records on immigration, would stick to their guns. They would have to be determined to resist the open borders forces, and that is a formidable lobby to have to stand up to. Only a candidate who was really a believer would have what it takes to oppose the open borders crowd. I think all the top tier candidates have shown themselves willing to pander to Hispanics, or at the very least, to work both sides of the street as necessary to win votes.
Put simply, I don't trust them, based on their past records.
I'm pretty much with VA. If one of the candidates made a credible promise, I could imagine changing my position, but I just don't see that happening. In particular, I think I'd have to see a convincing statement from Tancredo about why he turned around and started believing in the nominee, since he currently thinks all the top-tier guys are phonies. For instance, Tancredo has criticized Romney's positions on immigration as a classic example of his "conversion on the road to Des Moines".
I'd also add that a decent position on immigration for me would have to include some sort of recognition that allowing Muslim immigration is tantamount to importing the jihad into America. I think the chances of us getting that from one of the top candidates is really low.
John, thank you. I've moved your comments to the other thread.
-Terry
Post a Comment