Replies

As I said in my previous post, Mr. Thompson has never been a pro-life champion who was willing to take a very public stand against abortion and endure the attacks that such a stand brings. He had a pro-life voting record, but he has not been a pro-life leader. He came from a state where a pro-life voting record wouldn't hurt him with the voters, so he's never had to worry about paying a price for those pro-life votes. Likewise, he comes from a state where pro-gun votes in Congress do not hurt him with pro-gun voters back home. He's never had to pay a price for pro-gun votes, and yet he was still willing to support the Lautenberg ban and cast a few other votes favored by advocates of gun control.

Based on these things, I cannot be certain that Fred Thompson's record would be any different from Mitt Romney's record if they came from the same state. When I look at bad things that Mitt Romney has said or done, I can at least console myself that he had to appease the voters in a very liberal state. With Fred Thompson, I can only surmise that he isn't really on my side or that he is appeasing his Hollywood friends. At their core, I don't think there's much difference between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson on most public policy issues.

The difference is in their background and experience. Mitt Romney's experience has been in executive leadership. He's spent his life figuring out how to make organizations run efficiently. Fred Thompson has little or no executive experience. He's not been in charge of anything and been responsible to produce results. In his favor, he seems to have spent more of his life thinking about big public issues. On balance, I think the executive experience is more important in a president.

Bill