Posted on 12/31/2007 12:05:51 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Executive experience. Mitt has the edge over Fred on that. Running any big enterprise: profit, non-profit, government. Romney has done it all. And with extreme success. Mitt is the one, in my opinion, with the best such experience on the Republican side.
I don't think we can discount such experience...that doesn't make Mitt my choice automatically, but it counts for a lot.
“Executive experience. Mitt has the edge over Fred on that. Running any big enterprise: profit, non-profit, government. Romney has done it all.”
So has George Soros. You gonna vote for him?
I’ll take foreign policy experience over executive experience any day.
Romney has not flopped, he flipped on every issue that is important to the Republican base. I will need you standing with me as we keep him honest and on track for the next eight years. We have had to take GWB to the woodshed more than once. Kerry had more problems than vacillation. He was just not where Americans are on too many issues.
I can’t remember which President it was - I think Eisenhower - who came to the Presidency with all kinds of “executive” experience and complained publically how totally inappropriate the experience it turned out to be.
It seems that contrary to popular belief, the Presidency is nothing like a company management or evena military command and control structure.
Other than the White House staff, the President doesn’t get to boss folks around, and the public’s penchant for wanting to see folks with that kind of experience in the White House mystifies me. That kind of experience ought to be a real good qualification for Postmaster General.
For President, I want someone with Leadership qualities.
Fred would be a very fine Republican candidate. I’m planning to vote for him in the primaries.
“No, Fred cannot win without the Christians, and I doubt he will be able to forge a relationship with them.”
I agree with the first part and disagree with the second part. Two questions: 1) What does it mean to “have a relationship with Christians”? and 2) Why can’t Fred forge one?
I suppose you mean some kind of endorsement or support from the Christian base of the Republican party. Fred already has the support of the Right to Life group and that enough should be sufficient. The support of Christian leaders is not very important—American Christians are very independent, both Protestant and Catholic, and really don’t pay attention to recommendations from religious leaders.
“If you just dismiss “electability” and go with whatever yo-yo you happen to ‘feel’ good about, you are going to end up with Hillary
“What will win is that which conforms to Conservative principles. Without support from the entire Conservative base, there is no success in the general. The guy with the best Conservative credentials, and the record to prove it, is the candidate of consensus and is the best chance of a win in the general.”
And this is Fred.
Whom do you recommend?
“Executive experience. Mitt has the edge over Fred on that. Running any big enterprise: profit, non-profit, government. Romney has done it all. And with extreme success. Mitt is the one, in my opinion, with the best such experience on the Republican side.
“I don’t think we can discount such experience...that doesn’t make Mitt my choice automatically, but it counts for a lot.”
Correct. This is my major beef with Fred—he’s not a former governor, which is the best preparation for the Presidency.
However, character trumps experience, IMO. I don’t trust Mitt’s character, because he seems to have adopted liberal positions to get elected governor in MA.
Even with that doubt, he’s by far better than any Demo. He’s just not as good as Fred in the consistency department. I don’t feel I can trust him.
But I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee.
I strongly disagree with this statement. While Thompson may not be an evangelical Christian himself, he isn't objectionable to any evangelical that I know.
Of all the Republican candidates, Thompson is probably the only one who doesn't offend any major group in the coalition. Every other candidate offends at least one major group. Fred is the best hope of keeping our base together for the general election.
The Christians look for certain things in a candidate and expect him to back their issues.
2) Why can’t Fred forge one?
I think he has made himself unpalatable to them. He was going in with one strike anyway, in the form of a divorce. While not a deal breaker in itself, it is certainly frowned upon.
He was also pro-choice early in his career. Again, not a deal breaker because his position changed, and his record makes up for earlier statements, but also likely to leave a bad taste.
But upon entering the race Fred dissed the Value Voters, got into a brawl with Dobson (not his fault, but he could have handled it better), came out against the marriage amendment and abortion amendment, and declared he didn't go to church much.
These things are probably unpardonable, moving him far from their grace.
Fred already has the support of the Right to Life group and that enough should be sufficient.
No. Abortion is "the big one", but there are many other issues as well. He has nullified any endorsement WRT Right to Life by coming out against a Right to Life amendment.
*note*: To be clear, I understand his reasoning, and probably agree, because moving the murder of children into the federal jurisdiction necessarily moves all murder into the federal jurisdiction. For that reason, I must regrettably concur.
Those intricacies, however, will be lost in the cacophony. He would have done better to come out for the amendment and move the Christians in his direction after he had the bully pulpit, their attention as the leader, and the time to fully vet his position.
I do disagree with Fred regarding the marriage amendment, however.
And this is Fred.
No, It is Hunter.
Huckabee's rise began while Fred was quite viable. The Christians chose to raise up Huckabee instead of boosting the more visible Thompson. With Huck loosing ground, very little of that support has moved to Fred. Why do you suppose that is the case?
Of all the Republican candidates, Thompson is probably the only one who doesn't offend any major group in the coalition.
Not true. Eve Fred has said (through his manager) that he needs to shore up his support in the Christian Right. He knows that is the problem.
Every other candidate offends at least one major group. Fred is the best hope of keeping our base together for the general election.
No, Hunter is the consensus candidate. If not Hunter, the Christians will stay with Huck, turn to McCain or become diffused between several candidates.
See my #51
Then put your money where your mouth is and buy Fred’s Iowa contracts, they’re cheap. If you’re right, you could make a bunch of money.
As to your point ensampled by Eisenhower's comments: I understand the structure of our government doesn't permit the Prez to be the "boss" of everyone. :)
I agree nothing can totally prepare one for the massive job of being President, but the executive experience one gets by heading up a government, corporation or large charity is invaluable. Certainly that kind of experience is better than being a creature of the legislative process...which is why we rarely elect nominees from that branch anymore.
So, you'll concede Mitt has more executive experience than Fred? ;-)
No. And anyone who reads my posts in context knows I wouldn’t.
I’ll vote for common sense and conservative judgment with a proved record. Fred Thompson!
I partially agree and partially disagree with you. Let’s discuss Fred, Hunter and the Christian value voters further, since I think they will be the “king makers” in this primary.
Me: 2) Why can’t Fred forge one?
“I think he has made himself unpalatable to them. He was going in with one strike anyway, in the form of a divorce. While not a deal breaker in itself, it is certainly frowned upon. “
I think the majority of Christians, both primary voters and general election, don’t know this nor care. It’ll certainly come out if Fred is the Pubbie candidate.
“He was also pro-choice early in his career. Again, not a deal breaker because his position changed, and his record makes up for earlier statements, but also likely to leave a bad taste. “
I didn’t know this and I’m a news junkie. I assume he changed over twenty years ago, so this is not a factor.
“But upon entering the race Fred dissed the Value Voters, “
What specifically did he say? I’m surprised the news media isn’t trumpeting it. Again, I am not aware of a statement from him like this. Certainly McCain did so in 2000, and he is DOA in this election because of it.
“got into a brawl with Dobson (not his fault, but he could have handled it better), “
Agreed. Dobson has some weight with his specific devotees, but that isn’t all Christian voters, nor do his followers necessarily pay attention to Dobson’s political comments.
“came out against the marriage amendment and abortion amendment, “
Federalism, with which I agree, although certainly both amendments are justified. 1) marriage amendment because the MA Supreme Court unilaterally changed the meaning of marriage to include homosexuals. This puts all the other states’ marriage laws in jeopardy. The only legal solution to this is a constitution amendment, or MA legislators to overturn this ruling.
“and declared he didn’t go to church much. “
Just a factual statement. I’m glad he’s not pandering for votes. This bothered me, until I remembered Lincoln didn’t go to church much either. After he was President, he became a fervent Christian.
“These things are probably unpardonable, moving him far from their grace. “
Nah. The majority of Christians are unaware of any of these things, even the majority of primary voters.
Me: Fred already has the support of the Right to Life group and that enough should be sufficient.
“No. Abortion is “the big one”, but there are many other issues as well. He has nullified any endorsement WRT Right to Life by coming out against a Right to Life amendment. “
This is a return to the status quo before Roe v. Wade. He did not oppose a right to life amendment, merely pointed out it isn’t likely, and he’d prefer to pursue overturning Roe v. Wade.
While I support a right to life amendment, I think we missed our chance—in the late 70’s we were distracted by the ERA amendment, when we should have pursued the right to life amendment. Now I think there isn’t enough support for it.
“*note*: To be clear, I understand his reasoning, and probably agree, because moving the murder of children into the federal jurisdiction necessarily moves all murder into the federal jurisdiction. For that reason, I must regrettably concur. “
Actually, it merely state unborn children have a right to life and are human beings. The murder prosecution should be left to the states. Or at least, that’s what I think it should say. If it’s worded as a “crime amendment” or could be interpreted that way, then I have to agree with you.
“Those intricacies, however, will be lost in the cacophony. He would have done better to come out for the amendment and move the Christians in his direction after he had the bully pulpit, their attention as the leader, and the time to fully vet his position. “
Yes, as a political judgment, for the Republican nomination, I agree with you. But the impression I got was that Fred felt the amendment was not realistic and he would not support something impractical.
“I do disagree with Fred regarding the marriage amendment, however. “
I haven’t heard any statement from Fred on that.
Regarding Hunter, I agree he is nearly ideal on the issues. But he must get votes in the primary. He must get contributions to advertise. And he must sell himself to the the Republicans first, and then the general electorate. Without these things, he cannot be elected.
Also against Duncan and Fred is that they are legislators not governors. I feel executive experience is important. But it is less important than the right stance on the issues.
Duncan is the best on issues—but IMO Fred is “good enough”. I think you overestimate his negatives with Christians. The proof will be Iowa. If he can get at least 20% there (3rd place, or better), that’ll show he has sold himself to them. Once Huckabee’s liberal positions and international inexperience is fully exposed, Fred will be the best man left standing—unless they go to Duncan.
We’ll know January 4th.
Then why did you ask?
Thats why the Exec experience doesn’t really mean poop as far as who who would make a good POTUS.
Balderdash. The collective judgement of the American people says otherwise. They have elected, repeatedly, men with such experience. The ranks of the legislature have rarely been tapped for direct ascension to the highest office in the land.
“Then why did you ask?”
Just to show how silly it was to use that as a yardstick.
Jimmy Carter had as much Exec experience as Romney.
I’ll pass on voting based on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.