Fred is playing exactly playing into Mitt's his hands. Fred has the typical Washington style pessimism.

Huckabee seems like a nice guy, but he strikes me as a pandering phony. The nice guy in Iowa who promised to take the high road has morphed into a bare knuckle brawler in SC. Watch him start to attack McCain, after emotionally defending him against softballs lobbed in by Romney's campaign.

Huckabee's populist rhetoric flys in the face of proven conservative principles. Reagan told us a rising tide lifts all ships. Huckabee tells us a rising tide lifts the rich ship and sinks the working man ship, then drowns the sailors.

He only appeals to the far right of the Republican party. His base, evangelicals, will support him because of his faith regardless of his actions, policies, or general appeal. That won't be the case with the majority of the electorate in the US. Southerners may be willing to vote for an unqualified guitar playing good ole boy evangelical, but the general electorate is more discerning. He has no appeal beyond evangelicals, and doesn't appear to be trying...why do Huckabee's mailers, visits, messages target protestant evangelicals and not a broader cross section of the party? Why not encourage his evangelical base in Michigan to contact Catholics and Mormons along with protestant evangelicals?

Bottom line: Huckabee is not electable by the diverse US electorate in the fall.

Any of the Republican candidates face a tough battle in November. But if Huckabee is the nominee the Republicans will suffer the worst defeat in November since '64...possibly worse than that.

If there are any Reagan conversatives still out there, your best candidate IS FRED THOMPSON and this is why:. HE IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE OF THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. HE IS SEEING A HUGE SURGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND IN HIS DONATIONS. HE IS THE REAL DEAL. HE HAS NEVER CHANGED HIS VIEWS UNLIKE ALL OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES.

1. MITT ROMNEY -- WAS PRO-CHOICE, NOW PRO-LIFE...RAISED TAXES AS GOVERNER, NOW FOR TAX CUTS...WAS FOR AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS, NOW WANTS THEM TO GO HOME.

2. JOHN MCCAIN -- WAS AGAINST THE BUSH TAX CUTS, NOW WANTS TO MAKE THEM PERMANENT...WAS FOR AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS, NOW WON'T ADMIT HE'S FOR AMNESTY, BUT SWITCHES THE DISCUSSION TO SECURING THE BORDER. ALSO, DON'T FORGET MCCAIN-FEINGOLD, MCCAIN-KENNEDY, THE GANG OF 14.

3. MIKE HUCHABEE -- RAISED TAXES AS GOVERNOR, NOW FOR TAX CUTS...WAS FOR AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS, NOW FOR THEM TO TAKE A VACATION TO THEIR HOME COUNTRY AND THEN THEY CAN COME BACK.

4. RUDY GIULIANI -- RAISED TAXES AS MAYOR, NOW FOR TAX CUTS...WAS FOR AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS, NOW FOR PAYING A FINE AND STILL STAY HERE(STILL AMNESTY)...WAS PRO-CHOICE, NOW PRO-CHOICE...WAS FOR GAY MARRIAGE, NOW FOR GAY MARRIAGE.

Don't get me wrong. Mitt would be my second choice; he seems like a good guy and relatively conservative, but Fred has to be the most consistent conservative in the race. To say that Fred's not running on substance is silly. He's been the easiest to find out what he believes and wants to do just from his website and speeches. He's the only one I've heard a legit plan for social security from. Any attack on Fred that I've heard seems weak. There's only one Reagan but Fred seems like the closest you'll get in this race. The only way I'm voting for Mitt is if Fred drops out within the next two weeks.

Dan R. your post is all talk no substance. The real gullibles are those who don't realize how empty your statement was of any substantiating facts.

Mitt Romney is a man of Character. How can we know this?

He admits that he was wrong on abortion and that he was effectively pro-choice and has shown that after realizing his mistake and anyone who takes the time to look at his record as Governor can see that he was an effective advocate for life after his correction.

He admits that in balancing the budget that while he did not raise taxes he did raise fees and explained why.

When ever Mitt Romney takes a stand on policy and makes promises, like in Michigan with the automotive industry, he always has a well laid out plan for accomplishing those promises.

He has absolutely no ethically questionable acts in his past as a business man or as a public official. Some on this post have tried to claim that he does relying on the anonymity of the web to protect themselves from slander accusations but there is utterly not evidence of anything questionable in his past.

We could go on but it should be enough to say that Mitt is a family man that has raise 5 very successful and intelligent sons and has had a long and healthy marriage. Any one who can openly admit their mistakes and has shown unprecedented success in all their endeavors deserves a certain amount of respect. And, all those closest to Mitt Romney will tell you that he is of the utmost character, a hard worker, caring to a fault, crazy smart and someone they would trust to the end.

Just so I have a post here directly related to the article Fed Thompson's statement shows, more than anything, a lack of understanding on the economy, the government role in it and an inability to problem solve or even understand someone else’s intelligent and well laid out proposals.

Don't get me wrong there are a lot of things I respect about Thompson but this is why I support Romney over any of the other candidates.

He is one of the few politicians who can wrap his head around our economy and come up with real solutions to the problems that Washington, to this point, has been unable to do anything about. Vote Mitt!

I've heard a lot of comments bagging on Romney's record.

Romney created far more jobs than were lost during his business career. Sometimes he had to lay people off. If he buys a company and it is failing and he doesn't lay some people off then the whole company could go under and no one has a job (or even a severance package).

Romney inherited a terrible economy in Mass. No one disputes that. No one can dispute that the economy turned around under Romneys tenure. The unemployment rate was lower when he left than when he came in. After the economy bottomed out in Dec. '03, Massachusetts added 81,000 new jobs to the state. The unemployment rate now is almost 1/3 less than it was when Romney got elected.

Mitt: Socialized medicine does not equal conservatism.

Mitt: A businessman does not a President make. The government cannot be run like a business. The government is not a business. The government does not play by the same rules as a business. Mitt has no experience here. It's a perceived but false strength.

Mitt: A man of principles does not change them to suit the political climate.

Mitt: Answer this, how does a conservative become Governor in the 2nd most liberal state in the union? There is only one way. The word starts with P and ends with G.

Mitt: The federal government has no business fixing a states economy. We have local governments for this. He's making promises he cannot keep and cannot be considered conservative.

Mitt is not fit to be president, but he sure looks nice.

It is too bad that Thompson doesn't fully understand Romney's economic ideas to help the auto industry. How can we as a nation expect a struggling auto industry to create better fuel efficient vehicles to solve our nations energy problems without resources? I am a fiscal conservative and wish that the government would spend much less, but Mitt Romney's ideas for Michigan are refreshing and smart. I would like to see my tax dollars going toward something beneficial and valuable down the road. (ie Better fuel economical cards coming out of MI) We need someone who understands economics and can make realistic recommendations to fix problems. The only candidate I see with that talent is Mitt Romney.

"I would like to see my tax dollars going toward something beneficial and valuable down the road. (ie Better fuel economical cards coming out of MI)." That is a smart idea. It's also the opposite of Mitt proposed. Romney wants to deregulate the auto industry which would increase our need for foreign oil.

And Layne Pitcher, let me make sure I understand this. Romney is a man of character because when he is called out on his lies and distortions, he eventually admits to the truth? So if you say are the NRA endorsed candidate, but later admit that that isn't true then you a man of character? A man of character wouldn't have to admit to these things in the first place.

Phil, good questions to Romney. May I also add the following question:

Mitt: exactly what and how are you going to do with the 12m illegals here? Specifics please! Remember, your solution must be practical and workable, otherwise I will deem it as mere lip-service.

Thompson can't win because he doesn't have the money or popularity and his ideas are "old school." Guiliani is showing his disdain for the "small"states. Romney is becomming the "Kerry" of this election cycle because of the(alledged) flip flopping reputation he has aquired. McCain would attract lots of Independents and some democrats in a general election, especially if Hillary is the Dem candidate. Huckabee would also attract a lot of independent and southern democtatic votes in a general election. What we need is a McCain or a Huckabee with Romney's money (or Bloombergs for that matter.

In response to Charlie above, I have pasted an excerpt from Romney's Speech in MI to the Economic Club. You may also wish to read the whole speech. You may find it enlightening.

"As you know, research spins out new ideas for new products, from both small businesses and large businesses. That's exactly what's happened in healthcare. We spend what $30 billion a year in NIH, and we lead the world in healthcare products. In defense, we spend even more. We lead the world in defense products. We also spend money in the space industry. And we lead the world in products coming out of space. Look how industries in these other states that have those advantages that thrive from the spin of other technologies, from our investment there. So if we can invest in healthcare, and defense, and space, why not also invest in energy and fuel technology right here in Michigan?

"Michigan can be a laboratory, just like other states – a drawing board, from which we can invent the future.

How can someone be a fiscal conservative and at the same time propose a $20 billion hand out to one of the worst run US industries over the past 30 years?

The US Auto industry has fought every single piece of legislation geared towards making cars that are more fuel efficient, and in the process has allowed Japanese and Korean car makers to eat into their sales figures. Guess what, India is going to be next.

I thought the point of free markets was to create competition and thus spark innovation. The sad thing is, the US Automakers have just sat on their hands and watched everyone else compete for the past 2 decades.

Corporate Welfare is not Free Markets, and anyone who is a fiscal conservative should be ashamed at Romney's blatant pandering.

McCain and Thompson are like grumpy old republican men. What America needs are dynamic, progressive, efficient leaders who will put America back to its economic power status.