Julie....Thompson is polling above Romney in a few meaningless national polls. Romney is making a very strong move in polls in IA, NH, and SC.

Romney is working a strategy and his strategy is working despite what national polls may say.

Kathryn Jean Lopez is suggesting a Thompson-Romney campaign--combining Romney’s money with Thompson’s appeal. I’m open to Romney but so far he just doesn’t light my fire and I can’t envision him winning the general. He seems rather solid and certainly competent--but not exciting enough to move enough of the anti-Bush sentiment. I could be wrong . . . but I tend to trust my first impressions on these things.

Not too late for this reason: the Republican primary voters are a relatively intelligent electorate. Unless they are persuaded that one of the three serious candidates is really the man they want, or collectively persuaded that these are the three they want, Republican voters will remain open to alternatives for several months. McCain will not catch on. Rudy is missing the boat by not connecting with conservatives -- many of whom have been quite ready to connect with him. Romney seems plastic on first impression. He’s a businessman, and that simply is not the mood as we go into 2008, nor should it be. He would have been a formidable candidate in 2000. Post-9/11, and in the midst of a seething culture war, Romney probably can’t excite enough Republicans to win the nomination. In different ways, all of the big three ("Rudy McRomney") are too reminiscent of the current president. Quite rightly, Republicans, like swing voters and for that matter Democrats, want somebody different.

David Frisk is on a roll. Good comments all around--and above (on Catholics) too.

It’s not too late. Fred should wait until summer to announce. He’s enjoying a lot of coverage now. In a month or so, the press coverage will die down, which makes that a perfect time to jump in the race & put himself in the spotlight again.

Over the next three months, if Thompson makes a strong statement on border security and opposes Bush’s bunko Amnesty-by-another-name plan , I would imagine that the nomination is his. He does not automatically start off offending any constituency, (as two of the current front-runners do), and his recognition from doing TV surely needs to be reckoned the equivalent of tens of millions of fund-raising dollars.

I’m still not sure why there is such a love affair between some conservatives and Thompson. He was a fairly unaccomplished Senator who was in favor of campaign finance reform and ran as a pro-choice candidate in the past (although I welcome his conversion to the side of life). He is essentially John McCain with a nicer voice but without the defense credentials.

We just finished an election here in Ohio that saw conservatives get killed, and all I’ve heard since is we need to get back to small-government/pro-business conservatism. This is EXACTLY what Romney brings to this race. He knows economics and business better than any candidate in the field.

Finally, I completely disagree with David that Romney is too much like President Bush. I love W, and I worked my rear off for him (like so many others) in 04. However, one of the things that draws me to Romney is that he is very much unlike Bush. He is a polished speaker with no hint of a good ole boy twang. He is an accomplished businessman (W’s business past was much more cloudy). Plus, he won in a Blue state which shows his ability to reach swing voters. I don’t think the GOP can match the 04 turnout machine, which makes getting to swing voters much more important.

speaking for myself Kyle, there is no "love affair" with Thompson. My thinking is this - the first GOP contender to offer the primary voter name recognition + a strong stance on the border issue - where the rank and file are waaaaay to the right of the party leadership - will be the guy that wins. McCain is already married to amnesty, as is Huckabee. Guliani sued so he would not have to enforce immigration laws in New York, and Romney has had a long time to make some statement about this and has said nothing particularly memorable. That does not make Thompson Reagan, it does not even mean I expect Thompson to step up on this issue, but what I am saying is that as the field of candidates stands at the moment, such a stance would radically shake up the primary field.

You are wrong about conservatives in Ohio getting killed - Ken Blackwell was a conservative, who ran a terrible campaign and got stomped, but Betty Montgomery, Mike Dewine, et al were not movement Conservatives and made no bones about it. The sole Republican to win statewide, Mary Taylor, is very Conservative but less controversial than Blackwell.

Kyle- I think Fred’s a solid conservative for the most part. While there’s rumor that he was pro-choice in 1994, he has a solid pro-life voting record. He at least doesn’t appear to have changed his stance for political gain.

I will not bash Romney, but I will say that he doesn’t appear genuine at first glance. He may earn my trust, but hasn’t thus far.

Check out the American Spectator’s website...they have an interview from 1994 where Thompson describes himself as pro-choice. It’s not a rumor - it’s a fact.

Josh you say you think Thompson is a solid conservative, but I’d like to see that backed up with facts. I also would like to know why Governor Romney doesn’t appear genuine. He paid a significant political price (being called a flip-flopper, etc.) for defending life and traditional marriage in Mass.

wm - good point on the entire GOP ticket not being movement conservatives. My point was that there was a great deal of noise after 06 about getting back to small government/pro-business "roots" of the party. I would argue that Romney does this far better than any other candidate in the field.

Kyle- There’s no doubt that Fred supported first trimester abortion in 1994, but he also supported restrictions (still no excuse). Sometime between then and 2000, he switched.

His interview with Chris Wallace & his voting record are quite conservative. He criticized the so-called global warming consensus when he filled in for Paul Harvey. He even says he’d pardon Libby. His sole error is McCain-Feingold, but that is not a deciding factor for me. It will probably be struck down this summer anyway.

On Romney. My only concern with him is that his switch came right when he needed to gear up for a presidential campaign. It just doesn’t come accross as authentic. It may be, and I won’t say he’s lying. He may still convince me to trust him in the future.