If Not Fred, Then Who? How About The Guy with the Conservative Running Mate? (UPDATED)

Bill Quick has an interesting idea come election day that might be worth a shot. He says that we disaffected Republicans should write in Fred Thompson on our ballots. His reasoning is pretty good:

They have to learn that if they want conservative votes, they have to nominate candidates conservatives would want to vote for.

This strategy is the only one that offers any hope of changing the leftward move of the GOP in the future. Sitting out won’t do it – they can spin the reasons why you sat out. Voting Democrat won’t do it, they can spin it that the GOP candidates weren’t liberal enough. Even voting “None of the Above” won’t do it, because that doesn’t specify what you want instead of none of the above.

I think that’s a marvelous idea, and if there are any candidates who read blogs, they ought to take note of this. There is a bunch of conservative voters who now have a palatable option to not voting for you. There’s a way to give them a palatable option, though. It’s risky, but I believe that this presidential race, unlike any race since 1980, will require boldness to win it.

Read on below the jump.

It’s no surprise that I see every Republican candidate as having at least one serious flaw – a flaw that causes me to hold back and seriously consider my vote. The candidate that seems least flawed to me – Mitt Romney – is still not conservative enough to earn my vote. But he could be. If he chose the right running mate.

Choosing a running mate before we’ve even gotten to Super Tuesday is…well, let’s just call it highly unconventional. There’s no clear front-runner at this point, even though each candidate has pretty much been running full-out on their strengths with plenty of commercials and TV pundit show appearances and shout-outs on talk radio. There isn’t much ground these guys haven’t covered and still the race is tight. At this point, their only option (and we’ve seen John McCain go to it already) is to start tearing into the other candidates in the hopes of ripping away supporters. But that’s the “negative campaign” way of doing things. The other way is to make yourself look head and shoulders better than the other folks in the race. I think Mitt Romney can do that, and allay conservative concerns about his instinct to run for big-government solutions to private problems, by bringing someone in now who is not only well-regarded but also considered solidly conservative all across the board.

Mitt Romney needs Michael Steele.

Steele would provide Romney with several advantages. First and foremost,he would gain an erudite and passionate speaker who is able to defend conservatism both emotionally and intellectually. Steele managed to sell conservative principles in a bastion of liberal Democrats and walked away with nearly 45 percent of the vote when he ran for US Senate. His speech before the 2004 Republican Convention was a masterpiece of Reaganite conservatism that stood as a strong and direct counterpoint to Barak Obama’s staunchly liberal and leftist speech before his convention.

Second, Steele would provide a lot of insulation against the inevitable identity politics that either the Clinton or Obama campaigns would throw at them in a general election. Steele has already faced some pretty disgusting racism as well as outright crime at the hands of Democrats. He knows how to endure the dirty politics with grace and style and his story is one of working hard to overcome the very things that Democrats say hold minorities and the poor back. That would help him and Romney greatly when the Democrats unleash their inevitable race and class-baiting.

More importantly for the present, having Steele on board would draw a good number of conservatives who are waiting for a solidly conservative candidate to make an appearance. Steele is about as solid as they come on the economy, the size and scope of government, and beating the Islamists. Having him there to temper Romney’s less conservative instincts will demonstrate the Romney not only hears what conservatives have been saying but is willing to act on their concerns early and decisively. Mitt Romney is not, as he has advertised himself, a “full-spectrum conservative”. But if he acts quickly, and brings in Michael Steele, he could just have himself a ticket that is.

UPDATE: Thanks to Michael van der Galien and Robert Stacy McCain for the links.

Michael thinks the idea’s pretty darned strong and says that Steele might just be a good pick for John McCain, too. He’d pull McCain’s conservative cred out of the gutter where he tossed it a few years back, and “Steele is young enough to take over after him”. Good point.

Robert is on board, too and has met Steele. His verdict: “…Steele’s cheerful, upbeat — dare I say, Reaganesque? — conservatism is for real.”

Well, Mitt? What are you waiting for?