Needless to say, I was dismayed at the results of Iowa last night. I think when it really came down to it, evangelicals felt like they had to vote for someone who shared their exact religious beliefs. After all, who wants to vote against a “pastor” who claims to be a “Christian Leader?”
Mike Huckabee is not a well-rounded conservative. Many people in Arkansas believe that as governor, he ruined the conservative movement. And now, many across the nation feel that Huckabee’s victory in Iowa has been a major step backward for conservatism nationwide. He’s a fiscal liberal. When it comes to foreign policy, he is utterly clueless. Besides social issues, there’s little difference between him and most Democrats. He must not win this nomination.
If John McCain wins Iowa, it will help Huckabee in South Carolina and in other states. It could even help Rudy Giuliani in Florida. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. He wants to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. He must not be allowed take New Hampshire.
Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are what I like to call fracture candidates. They are not well-rounded conservatives. Instead they have pieces of conservativism that fracture the wide conservative base of Defense Conservatives (DefCons), Social Conservatives (SoCons), Evangelicals, Fiscal Conservatives (FisCons) and Moderates. Rudy appeals to fiscal conservatives and defense conservatives. McCain appeals to moderates and independents. Mike Huckabee appeals to social conservatives and evangelicals.
There are only two whole conservatives in this race: Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Both appeal to the entire base, capturing what is known as the Reagan Coalition. They appeal to the variety of conservatives across the base. Keeping this base intact is the only way to win in 2008.
A stand must be made in New Hampshire for conservativism. There, voters must choose a candidate that reflects the wide range of principles the Republican party stands for. If not, I fear that we are headed towards defeat in 2008.
Until the past few weeks, I liked Mike Huckabee. What was there not to like? His clever witt, along with his excellent stances on social issues like abortion and gun rights, made him a candidate that was easy for me to like.
So what made me change my mind? Well if you’ve read my blogs before, you’d know that I’m a huge Romney supporter and I had never considered Mike Huckabee to be much of a threat to him. But then recently, things have started to change. At this point, one might automatically conclude that this is the sole reason for my dislike of the Huckster.
Unfortunately, such is not the case.
I’ve considered the pros and cons of all the candidates. I even strongly considered Fred Thompson at one point. I don’t like Rudy based on social issues. I don’t like McCain because of his poor immigration policy, along with a host of other problems. Ron Paul was just too crazy. Mike Huckabee just seemed to be that guy that had all the right stances, but just didn’t seem to stand a chance at winning the primary, much less the general election. Oh how I wish it were that simple.
When a candidate reaches the top tier like Huckabee has, their record is subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Guys like Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson have already had most of their dirt brought to light. I’d like to think that if there had any more skeletons in their closets, they would’ve been found by now. But now it’s Huckabee’s turn. What kind of skeletons will he have to face? Let’s take a look.
Taxes/Fiscal Policies Raising taxes is almost always a no-no for Republicans. We cut taxes, we don’t increase them. We leave that to the Democrats. But I really don’t think there’s any excuse for this:
Any tax you want to raise, I’ll raise it. Wow. Not only is he begging to raise taxes, it sounds like he’s desperate to do so. This is extremely troubling from a fiscal standpoint. Perhaps that’s why he’s in favor of the Fair Tax: so he doesn’t have to deal with making as many tough decisions on taxes.
Now Huckabee and his campaign would be quick to point out that they also issued tax cuts. This is true. But unfortunately the Governor can’t take credit for all of them. Plus there’s just one little problem: he also raised taxes. It wouldn’t be so bad if his tax adjusting amounted to a net decrease, but instead it amounted to a net increase of over $500 million. The toll it took on the people of Arkansas? A tax burden that was increased by 47%.
Club for Growth, a conservative PAC that advocates pro-growth, pro-economy fiscal policies, has generated “white papers” on each major GOP candidate, deeply analyzing their decisions in the areas of taxes, spending, school choice, free trade, Social Security, and tort reform. They issued their “white paper” on Huckabee on January 29th, 2007. When Huckabee found their analysis was not to his liking, he referred to them as “Club for Greed,” dismissing their factual and well-researched conclusions.
The Cato Institute gave Huckabee a grade of “F” in fiscal discipline for his final term in office, along with an overall grade of “D,” surpassed by even liberal Democrat governors like Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.
Unlike successful Republican governors Mitt Romney, Matt Blunt, Haley Barbour, and Bob Riley, Huckabee was unable to manage his state in such a way that would avoid a significant raise in taxes. Instead, Huckabee employed the default Democratic option: when all else fails, raise taxes.
Immigration To my surprise, Huckabee was also very poor on illegal immigration. Some have even referred to his record on immigration as “a disaster.” In Arkansas, Huckabee gave tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants, to which his response is “you don’t punish children for the sins of their parents.” The only problem is that he later said he would oppose federal aid for the same people. And they call Mitt Romney a flip-flopper…
When legislation requiring a proof of citizenship for voter registration was introduced, Huckabee denounced it as un-Christian and un-American.
His record is extremely dismal here. If I wanted amnesty for illegal immigrants, I’d vote for John McCain.
Crime Mike Huckabee granted clemency to more criminals in the state of Arkansas than all of the other six neighboring states combined. Over a 10 year span, Huckabee released 703 criminals during his administration, roughly 70 a year for 10 years, which basically amounts to the release of a felon every 5 days. Eleven of those were murderers. The Wayne Dumond case almost goes without saying. For more information on the clemencies granted by Huckabee, you can go here.
Foreign Policy I’d like to begin this section with a few quotes from Mike Huckabee:
When asked about the latest National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran, Huckabee had absolutely no clue what it was all about. What are we going to do about Iran, Mike?
Clearly, Mike Huckabee may be the worst Republican in this race on foreign policy besides Ron Paul. But at least Ron Paul’s stances on foreign policy are educated and somewhat rational. Huckabee’s are nearly non-existent.
Other Things That Bother Me It almost baffles me why any candidate would support quarantining AIDS patients. He even believed that AIDS could be spread by casual contact!
As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee received thousands of dollars in gifts, which in and of itself isn’t illegal or even necessarily unethical. But considering that one of the gift givers received an appointment from Huckabee makes me suspicious. Not to mention the fact that he and his wife actually registered at Dillard’s and Target for gifts they wanted:
Another thing that urks me is his insistence that God is propelling him towards victory. Now, I’m a God-fearing Christian that believes that the Almighty works in the affairs of mankind, but I’m a bit hesitant to point to poll numbers and popularity and refer to it as the “providence of God.” That’d be like me saying that Britney Spears’ album sales were so high because God prefers her over the Eagles.
Conclusion Mike Huckabee is great when it comes to abortion. He’s got a 100% pro-life record as far as I know. He’s great on gun control. The NRA probably loves this guy for supporting the 2nd Amendment. Those two issues are near and dear to my heart. In fact, they are part of why I’m a Republican.
If those two issues were all that mattered, I might have even considered voting for Huckabee in the primary. But upon examining his fiscal policies, along with his record on immigration, foreign policy and crime, I couldn’t possibly find myself voting for him to be the nominee of the Republican party in 2008. However, should he win the nomination, as with virtually all of the GOP candidates, I would vote for him in the general election.
Ah, YouTube. These debates are always interesting because you never know what to expect. I’m still not sure if I like it or not. It’s like communism: an appealing theory on paper but once you put it in action, it’s a little disappointing.
Sure, Huckabee had a good night. He’s intelligent, he’s got a certain degree of charm. He probably would’ve made a better actor than Fred Thompson! But let’s face it: who wouldn’t do well if they were lobbed softball questions all night? The only difficult question he received was the “What would Jesus do?” when it comes to the death penalty. That’s a difficult but definitely loaded question.
For the sake of being side-tracked, let me answer that in my own way: Romans 13:1-7. Verse four says “for he [ruler/governing authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant an of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” God struck people dead, folks. This “what would Jesus do?” nonsense when it comes to the death penalty is a faulty premise. And in case you weren’t aware: the federal government is not Jesus!
Huckabee answered it well with his “Jesus was too smart to be a politician” reponse. However, even though it was a very clever dodge to the question, it was still a dodge nonetheless. But since long and reasoned responses don’t make good soundbytes, the dodge works just as well.
Romney got tripped up on gays in the military, which was a direct torpedo from the Hillary campaign due to the fact that the questioner was working for her. While he did get tripped up, I must ask: who wouldn’t? On the big totem pole of Republican issues, gays in the military ranks pretty low. This was a swipe from the Hillary camp, which makes me think that Hillary’s people are afraid of Romney.
When it came to the immigration sparring match between Giuliani and Romney, Romney easily won. The “sanctuary mansion” comment from Giuliani was cheap and smart, but Romney’s explanation blew Rudy out of the water, especially when he pointed out that the illegal immigrants in New York had already broken the law by simply being illegal immigrants. In reference to illegals working for Romney’s lawn service, Romney asked Rudy if he was supposed to ask them if their workers were all legal. I can see Rudy right now: “excuse me sir, put down that weedeater and show me your green card!” Yeah right.
McCain was….good ole McCain. I have to say, he’s had consistent debate performances: he hasn’t gotten any better and he hasn’t gotten any worse. He went toe-to-toe with Romney on torture and waterboarding, a match that neither seemed to win. Both had well-reasoned positions but I agree with Romney’s more. Personally, I don’t see a problem with waterboarding. They tried it on a Fox News correspondent for crying out loud! Besides, if we know for certain that the enemy has information we need and they aren’t willing to give it, we should do whatever is necessary to save American lives, as long as we don’t do any permanent physical damage. However, I have to ask: is waterboarding specifically condemned by the Geneva Convention? If so, McCain has a valid point. If not, I say we have every right to do it.
I did agree with what McCain said to Ron Paul about his version of isolationism causing World War II. That was a good point and I’m glad somebody finally said it.
Thompson was a translucent figure on the stage. He didn’t really stand out or make waves as usual. He is such a dud when it comes to debates. It’s really sad. No wonder he put off joining the race as long as possible. Maybe he should’ve waited until late December before declaring his candidacy.
Ron Paul did say a few things that I agreed with. But this was not his strongest performance. The fact that he couldn’t name the Kurds to the North in Iraq is pretty sad. Even I could do that and I’m not a presidential candidate. I kept saying “Kurds, Ron, Kurds!” in my head, almost feeling sorry for him. It doesn’t matter, he won’t lose any supporters over it. But he definitely won’t gain any.
Duncan Hunter’s complaining about a gun being tossed to the guy in that gun question video was just a little bit lame. It was done for effect, Duncan! Yes, of course you should hand the gun over to somebody, but let’s face it: that just doesn’t look as cool as catching it. Obviously, the guy in the video didn’t look very bright for doing it that way, but it’s not a good idea to point that out to him on national television. I’ve said this before: Duncan Hunter should drop out of the race immediately. I agree with him on a lot of issues, but he’s just not pertinent to this race.
Tancredo is still irrelevant. I didn’t quite get his “out-Tancredo Tancredo” remark. Maybe he thinks that other people are copying him on immigration. Okay, Tom. Think about this: other candidates have platforms. And their platforms have planks in them. One of their planks is immigration. You, on the other hand, are just walking the plank.
When it comes down to real candidates in this race, Huckabee and Mitt had the best night; Rudy and Ron Paul had the worst night. I’m just wondering how this debate will affect the rest of the race.
As many of you may know, I’m a Romney fan. But I also like Fred Thompson, even though I did say that I didn’t think he was the next Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, I think both men have Reaganesque principles and values that reflect the true nature of the Republican Party.
I could go on and on about why I think Romney is qualified and why I think he’ll win the nomination, but I’ve pretty much done that already in other posts.
As it stands, Giuliani is the frontrunner of this race. Why? Because of his leadership on 9/11. Because he has governed one of the largest cities in the world. But most importantly, because many in the GOP believe he’s the only one that can beat Hillary Clinton. However, he’s not true to the platform of the Republican party. Even Giuliani himself has admitted that.
At this point, the more conservative electorate has been splintered between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson. This leaves Giuliani at the top since he doesn’t necessarily appeal to that constituency anyway. He is exchanging the social conservative vote for the moderate/centrist vote, which will likely be his downfall. Right now, evangelicals seem to be torn between Romney and Huckabee. Fred Thompson’s still got a large base of conservative followers as well. But I believe that the momentum will eventually shift to Romney if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.
Now, some fear that Romney’s so-called flip-flopping and his religious beliefs may alienate members of the base. Not to mention that he’s a Massachusetts Republican (to many, that’s an oxymoron), which could cause Southerners to be skeptical about supporting him. What could solidify his chances at being competitive in the general election? A good running mate.
I hear so many calling for Huckabee to be the eventual running mate of whoever wins the nomination. And he may indeed be a good choice. But I suggest Thompson instead. Why?
Thompson is second to Giuliani in national polls. He’s got significantly strong support in the South. He’s a generally likeable candidate with very good values. He has a very consistent conservative record in the Senate. He could bring a certain degree of balance to a Romney candidacy.
So why would I choose Romney as the candidate with Thompson as the running mate and not vice-versa?
Romney is running a better strategy than Thompson by leading in early primary states. His organizational strength would be better than Thompson’s in a general election. Romney has governing and managerial experience that Thompson doesn’t have. Thompson doesn’t seem to desire the White House that much anyway. So being a Vice President might better suit his personality and abilities.
A Romney-Thompson ticket could unite the Republican base by appealing to evangelicals, moderates, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. They would have the same coalition that Reagan had. Personally, I think a ticket like this would be the next Reagan-Bush. And the last time that happened, things went very well for the Republican party and for the American people.
Note: I just thought I’d mention a few more smart choices for running mates: J.C. Watts, Mike Huckabee, and Condoleeza Rice.
What is the first thing that pops into the mind of an evangelical when they think of Mitt Romney?
“He’s a Mormon.”
Whether they like him or not, that’s probably the first thing that comes to mind. He’s one of those people that thinks he can become a god. You know, those folks that wear the weird underwear and practice polygamy. Well, for the record, the LDS church hasn’t practiced polygamy in over 100 years, but I think you see my point. Romney is a member of one of the largest yet strangest religions in the United States.
Now, I’m not here to defend Mormonism by any means. I’m a Christian, and I guess you could even call me an evangelical (though the connotation seems a bit deceptive). I would readily agree with most evangelical Christians in thinking that Mormonism is a cult. I’d also say that Mormonism is not a form of traditional Christianity because of some of its peculiar beliefs about Jesus Christ, among other things.
So I suppose I can sympathize with the reservation that evangelicals have concerning a Mormon president. Electing a Mormon to the White House will give that “cult” some form of “validation.” At least, that’s the logic that certain evangelicals have.
However, I take an alternate perspective. I have not and will not vote for a candidate on the basis of religion. I’m not voting for a religion, I’m voting for a candidate. If I was voting for the religion of a candidate, I never would have voted in my life. Not a single candidate I’ve voted for has a had a religion just like mine. Have I compromised my own beliefs or values in doing that? I hardly think so!
What is ironic in all of this is that no one is really discussing the religion of other candidates. Rudy Giuliani is a Catholic. Fred Thompson is a non-churchgoing member of the Church of Christ, which is by far the closest to my own religious affiliation. John McCain was an Episcopal and converted to Baptist (couldn’t that be considered flip-flopping?). Mike Huckabee is a Baptist. Ron Paul is some form of Protestant. Yet, their religious beliefs are not nearly as scrutinized as Mitt Romney’s.
While Romney may be the main candidate in this race scrutinized on the basis of his religion, he is certainly not the first. John F. Kennedy was also criticized for being a Catholic. The sentiment was that a Catholic would not serve the needs of Americans, but instead, he would yield to the authority of the papacy in Rome. However, as Kennedy’s presidency would show, this was not the case.
Believe it or not, a founding father of this nation would not be considered worthy by evangelicals today. This individual held beliefs like the idea that Christ was not divine, the Bible needed to be “corrected,” and that Christ was simply nothing but a great moral teacher. Besides the idea of “errors” in the Bible, these beliefs extended to an even further extreme past traditional Christianity than that of Mormonism. What kind of ghastly infidel such as this could dare make his way to the office of Commander-in-Chief? None other than Thomas Jefferson.
I certainly wouldn’t say that Jefferson’s religious beliefs were validated by his election to office.
On the flip-side, let’s look at a few evangelical Presidents. What about Bill Clinton? He’s a Southern Baptist, so he’s got the right credentials, doesn’t he? What about Jimmy Carter? He was also a Southern Baptist, even a Sunday School teacher as I recall. Would these men be better for our country than a Mormon? Are these men what we would call “evangelical standard-bearers?”
Personally, when people say they won’t vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon, I can’t see it as anything but a form of bigotry.
Look at the top four candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson. Which one of those has been married to the same woman for the past 30 or so years? Mitt Romney. Doesn’t that count for something? Shouldn’t that speak volumes for his personal convictions?
Mormons are known for their moral lifestyles. Their values are generally on par with that of evangelicals. Why can’t we put aside specific religious beliefs to support a candidate that shares our values?
How many Baptists voted for Bush, a Methodist? How many Catholics? Mormons? How many people in the realm of Christendom have voted for a candidate that doesn’t share their exact religious beliefs? Most people vote for the politicians that share their values, not their personal religious beliefs.
And all this talk of Romney flip-flopping on abortion also grinds my gears. Whenever an evangelical says they can’t vote for Romney because he “used to be pro-choice,” it’s as if they are admitting that the pro-life movement is unable to change the hearts and minds of Americans: “The very idea of that Mitt Romney thinking he can be pro-life! You must be born pro-life! No one can become pro-life!”
Such reasoning is lost on me. If anything, as a fellow pro-life voter, I appreciate that Romney has embraced our values.
The sadly ironic thing about all of this is that there are actually evangelicals out there that would sacrifice their pro-life convictions and vote for Giuliani instead of Romney because Giuliani isn’t a Mormon and because he’s the “only candidate” can beat Hillary Clinton. And to those people, I say shame on you.
If you don’t like Mitt Romney, that’s fine. Disagree with his stances on healthcare, taxes, the economy, the war in Iraq, the federal government, or whatever. Just don’t be ignorant enough to not vote for him on the basis of his religion. And if you’re an evangelical, don’t be naive enough to think that his morals and values are all that different than your own.
Experience is one of the most important aspects to examine when looking at candidates in any election, whether it’s as low as dogcatcher or as high as the President of the United States. And of course, different positions require different experience. People want to know what you’ve done in the past that you’ll be able to apply in the future, what you’ve learned from, and what you’ve had success at doing. I personally believe that one of the most important types of experience in relation to any office is managerial experience.
I suppose that’s why I’ve always favored businessmen in politics. Businessmen seem to understand what needs to be done, what needs to go, what needs to stay, and what needs to be changed. In my own state of Alabama, Bob Riley is a successful businessman who has done amazing things for our state, revealing a stark contrast between Republicans like himself and the fatcat Democrats like former Governor Don Siegelman (convicted felon) who have run our state into the ground for decades.
So when I look at the current field of GOP candidates, I want to know what they’ve done as managers. Have they ran a business? Have they ran a state? A city? I want to see if their success as managers makes them qualified to run this country.
First, let’s look at Rudy Giuliani. Obviously, the biggest thing that sticks out about him is that he has managed the affairs of New York City, one of the greatest and most heavily populated cities in the world. He was mayor during 9/11, one the most trying times in the history of his city, and of the country itself. He had great success at combating crime in New York, with the crime rate falling below the national average under his administration. So from a strictly managerial point of view, I would say that Giuliani does in fact have qualified experience.
Second, John McCain. He has been a member of the House of Representatives, as well as a Senator. He served this country well in Vietnam as a naval pilot. After being shot down in 1967, he spent 5 and a half years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi. His congressional experience is decent and his time spent as a POW is extremely heroic and admirable. However, despite possible managerial experience in the military, he seems to have spent little time in the role of a manager.
Third, Mike Huckabee. Just like Bill Clinton, Mike Huckabee was born in Hope, Arkansas and eventually became governor of his home state, where he served 10 years (2 full terms and 2 years by special election). Under his administration, wellfare rolls were nearly cut in half and the economy grew by 4.4%, which was better than the national average. Needless to say, Mike Huckabee has a great deal of managerial experience.
Fourth, Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force as well as an OBGYN. He has served in the United States Congress for roughly 17 years (non-consecutively). While his political career has little managerial experience in and of itself, his time as a doctor and his time spent in the Air Force as a captain could constitute a significant degree of managerial experience.
Fifth, Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney’s managerial experience is extensive and varied. He spent 6 years as Vice President of Bain & Company, a Boston management consulting firm. After that, he co-founded a equity investment firm known as Bain Capital, which he headed for 14 years. Bain Capital has invested in or purchased companies like Staples, Brookstone, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, and the Sports Authority. During that time, he also returned to Bain & Company as CEO to save it from financial disaster. In 1999, he took over the scandal-ridden 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Initially, he faced a $379 million initial shortfall, but by the time the Olympics finished under his management, they ended up recording a $100 million profit. In 2002, he was elected as governor of Massachusetts, where he balanced the budget every year in office without raising taxes. Obviously, Mitt Romney has exceptional management experience.
Sixth, Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson has been an assistant U.S. Attorney, an actor, a lobbyist, and a Senator. However throughout his interesting and diverse career, it’s difficult to pin down any specific evidence of managerial experience. I would be hesistant to say he had none, but I cannot find any myself.
If any of you are thinking I left someone out, it’s probably because they don’t stand a chance at winning the nomination and I did not deem it important to consider them here.
Out of the entire group, I’d say that Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney have the most managerial experience by far. Rudy has managed one of the greatest cities in the world, Mike Huckabee has managed a purple state, and Mitt Romney has managed a blue state, a successful business, and the Olympics.
Keep in mind, this is strictly based on managerial experience, not social issues, family lives, or media attention. Based on that alone, I think there’s a pretty good selection from among the three with the most experience.
With the third quarter campaign money rolling in, it’s time for my assessment of the GOP Presidential candidates. Things are starting to tighten even more in this race and I don’t think it will loosen up much over the next several months.
First, let’s look at Giuliani. He’s still on top in most national polls, but his lead is getting much slimmer now that Fred Thompson has entered the race. He seems to be making a mad dash towards the right by speaking at a NRA convention and going to the infamous Philly cheesesteak shop that demanded customers order in English. What will he say next? I believe that life begins at conception and women shouldn’t be able to kill their babies? Who knows?
John McCain is seeing a decent little surge after a good showing in the recent debates (that is, the ones he showed up to). However, his campaign contributions may not mirror his success in the polls and his small victory this quarter may be short-lived. He will not win this nomination.
Mike Huckabee is gaining by inches (but only to scale) in the race. He could end up doing better than McCain, which would not surprise me. I personally like Huckabee quite a bit, but his Flat-Tax platform is short-sighted and unrealistic. He won’t win the nomination, but he’ll certainly be in consideration as a running mate.
Mitt Romney is seeing a bit of a decrease in national polls due to Fred Thompson’s entrance. Yes, he’s still my candidate and yes, I do think he still has a shot at the nomination. Why? Because recent polls are showing him ahead in all three of the initial primary states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina). South Carolina has been extremely tough for Mitt to crack, but now that a current ARG poll puts him ahead of the pack, this is definitely a huge break for his campaign, even though his leads in Iowa and New Hampshire may be starting to slim. This success, combined with leads in Nevada and Utah could build incredible momentum for the rest of the primary process.
Fred Thompson. I’ve said before that a late entry may hinder his chances. Was I right? Maybe. Some national polls have him second to Giuliani and a few even have him in the lead. As far as I know, he still leads in Texas, Tennessee, and Alabama. But I keep seeing less and less of him after his entry. He hasn’t made that many appearances lately and I get the feeling that he’s just not all that vigorous. Don’t get me wrong. Fred’s still my #2 guy for the nomination. But his opposition to a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, coupled with his apparent lack of enthusiasm makes me doubt him. Frankly, his supporters seem to want him in more than he does. That may sound like a good thing, but I think a candidate should have a strong desire to win and I’m just not getting that from Fred.
For the sake of humoring the fringe movement, I’ll acknowledge Ron Paul. I haven’t really seen him gaining much in the polls. He’s not irrelevant to this race, but he’s definitely not a main contender. His anti-war stances don’t mean as much to the conservative base as his supporters seem to think. Sure he’s got a substantial internet following, but let’s face it: so does Star Trek and Babylon 5.
Sam Brownback’s campaign is dead. He should quit now. Tom Tancredo should have quit six months ago. Duncan Hunter’s a good guy but he’s just not relevant to this race. Who am I missing……
Alan Keyes! I like Alan Keyes, I really do. But this guy does not have a prayer. He’s wasting our time by entering this race, even though I think he just might possibly make a good running mate.
Now a few strong words for the top-tier candidates: shame on you! This may sound wild and crazy coming from a guy that generally favors the upper echelon of candidates, but I was disappointed to see Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and yes even Mitt Romney absent from the recent PBS debate. Republicans have got to appeal to a wide range audience. No candidate is too good for a debate or forum. I don’t care who you are. Stop whining about how you don’t like the format, blah blah blah. Get out there and put forth your convictions. Failure to address these forums does far more harm than good.
So that’s my take on the status quo of the GOP Primary. Things are going to tighten up and I would venture to say that at least three candidates will win states next year. I don’t believe this is a two person race at all. It’s going to be roughly 4-5 serious contenders duking it out till the end. I just hope my guy comes out on top.
While most were projecting a Romney victory at the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa (including myself), I’m not sure that anyone expected such a large victory. Personally, I was thinking a modest mid-twenties showing would show Mitt’s organizational strength, but 31.5% is practically a landslide!
Obviously, Giuliani and McCain were punished for their failure to show up. I’d stop short of predicting that the primary will reflect these results because I still think many Iowans will support Giuliani. McCain made the biggest strategic mistake in not going to Ames. With his failing numbers and money nationwide, you might as well take him off the ballot in January. He needed something like Ames to keep his campaign alive. His failure to show up at the straw poll has perpetuated his downward trend into a political oblivion.
Some are saying that Romney’s victory is vastly overrated, but on the same coin, they prop up Huckabee and Brownback for coming in second and third by roughly 2000 votes less! But the way I see it is that if Romney garnered nearly double what his closest opponents did, wouldn’t that in turn make them irrelevant also? So basically, if you lose to a “loser,” didn’t you still lose? Correct me if I’m wrong…
Tancredo did fair in Ames, but who really cares? He’s almost as irrelevant as say….
Tommy Thompson? I’m glad he’s gone. Sometimes you’ve just got to cut the fat, I guess.
Duncan Hunter should quit immediately. If Tommy Thompson can quit with over 1000 votes, Hunter should follow suit due to his paltry showing.
Who is this John Cox and what was he doing on the ballot?
Then there’s that Ron Paul fellow. It appears that his grassroots cult of a following couldn’t carry him to a victory over Tancredo. However, this is one of the few respectable polls in which he managed to defeat Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson. He should savor this moment.
It’s interesting that Fred Thompson was on the ballot, but his lack of campaigning and his failure to enter the race made him slightly more relevant than Duncan Hunter and the absent Giuliani and McCain. If Fred’s going to run, he’d better enter as soon as possible. The American public are tiring of his “non-official” status. If he avoids the debating process altogether, he’s nothing short of a coward.
I enjoy seeing the field thin out. If we get down to a Giuliani-McCain-Romney-F. Thompson-Huckabee-Brownback-Paul field, things will be much more interesting.
The only thing I think we can take from this is that Romney will prevail in Iowa in January. The fact that he earned virtually double his nearest opponents and the fact that his other major opponents nationwide failed to even show up simply shows that Romney is the frontrunner in the state of Iowa.
It seems like everyone’s got a paranoid conspiracy theory about what a candidate will do if they are elected to the Oval Office. So I’m going to throw out some of my own theories on certain candidates:
Barack Obama – If elected President, Barack Obama will meet with Castro, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and Vladimir Putin to draw up a treaty in Cuba known as the Havana Accord, stipulating that each nation cannot retaliate against the other’s attacks. Together, they will team up against Pakistan, assassinate Musharraf, and invade the country. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden will have traveled to Iran on vacation, unbeknownst to everyone but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mitt Romney – Mitt Romney will be the first President of the United States ever sworn in with his hand on something other than the Bible. He will order the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to release the golden tablets that Joseph Smith found from the Mormon vault and swear on those. While the country will in fact be run like a well-oiled business machine, all Mormons will be given tax breaks and “Gentiles” will not. The nation’s capital will also be relocated to Independence, Missouri.
John McCain – He will die of natural causes 3 years into office. His accomplishments will include making President Bush the Ambassador to the United Nations, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and an open border with a large welcome sign on the Arizona border. He will be succeeded by Vice President John Kerry.
Hillary Clinton – She will introduce Hillarycare again, this time successfully due to a Democratic majority in Congress. Major supporters will include Vice President Obama, John Kerry, and Christopher Dodd. The White House will undergo complete renovation, adding on an obscenely large spa, complete with lipo-suction, botox, and of course, the nation’s largest jacuzzi (shaped like the U.S. mainland).
Rudy Giuliani – While the White House will be turned into a museum, the Oval Office will be relocated to a penthouse at the top of the Liberty Tower in New York City. He will support an amendment to the Constitution allowing for civil unions among homosexual couples in every state. For the State of the Union Address, President Giuliani will dress in drag and no one will be allowed to laugh.
Ron Paul – Deeming the current status of America unconstitutional, President Paul will return America to a Confederacy of loosely-connected states. Federal laws will be more like guidelines, but each individual state will be the final authority. As a result, marijuana will be legalized in 36 states. The FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, the Federal Court System, and the State Department will all be abolished within the first year of his term. When Congress meets, it will be more like a social gathering of philosophers rather than a law-making body.
Mike Huckabee – Speeches from President Huckabee will frequently reference the Andy Griffith Show, which will be shown in every television accross America due to the Wholesome Television Re-Run Act. Although not binding, the state religion will officially become Southern Baptist. Obese Americans will be put on the Presidential diet, resulting in astounding weight loss across America. And the Vice President will be none other than Governor Bob Riley of Alabama.
Fred Thompson – Fred Thompson will have made the official announcement for his candidacy on January 1, 2008, barely edging out Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani for the nomination. Shortly following his inauguration, Fred Thompson would also introduce the Wholesome Television Re-Run Act, except the emphasis would be on Law & Order. The embargo on trade with Cuba will be lifted, resulting in a boost for the American economy due to sales of Cuban cigars. Also, Michael Moore will be labeled an enemy combatant and exiled to France.
John Edwards – All Americans affected by poverty will have the choice of receiving an advanced form of Medicaid or exportation to Europe. Gasoline-powered cars will be outlawed along with any type of oil product, resulting in a greener America although Global Warming will remain relatively unchanged. However, President Edwards will be forced to resign when it is revealed that his haircare products contained a miniscule derivative of crude oil.
Sam Brownback – In a shocking move, President Brownback will announce that his Presidential authority stops at the steps of the Vatican, giving control of America to the Pope. What America had feared with John F. Kennedy will have been realized in President Brownback. Abortion doctors will be executed without trial. Catholic priests will be given the authority to arrest suspected criminals. With President Brownback and Vice President Giuliani, it will be the worst situation of Catholic control over a country since “Bloody Mary” in England.
Note: This post is purely satirical. If you are offended by it, you probably suffer from lack of a sense of humor. May God have mercy on your soul.
This may be a controversial post and I’m sure many will disagree with me. But that hasn’t really stopped me before…
I’d like to start out with a quote from Winston Churchill:
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
That sounds completely un-American, doesn’t it? We strongly hold to the ideal of democracy in America. Our nation was founded on that principle. Quite frankly, it truly is the most optimal system. I’d be hard pressed to disagree with it.
But think about the majority of Americans. Think about the things that sway them, the factors that come into play. People look at a candidate’s religion, their family life, their looks, their background, whether or not they have a dog, how big their house is, how much money have, how they made their money, etc. Have you noticed that I haven’t mentioned how they stand on the issues?
Think about the reasons people vote (or don’t vote) for a particular candidate. “I like the way he (or she) looks.” “He seems to have a good family life so I could vote for him.” “I don’t like him because he’s a Mormon.” “I won’t vote for somebody named ‘Obama,’ that sounds Muslim to me.” “I don’t like him because he’s been married three times.” “He cheated on his wife, so I can’t vote for him.” “Well he certainly looks presidential.” “We’re not ready for a female president.” “I think America needs a black president.”
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to deny that this mindless drivel has entered into the political process! There are voters in America that vote based on trivial information rather than where a candidate stands on the issues. Furthermore, some will vote for a candidate of a particular party without questioning the candidate’s stances.
I wonder how many times a voter does not make up their mind who they will vote for until they arrive at their particular polling place.
So many Ron Paul voters, Mike Huckabee voters, and Sam Brownback voters act like I’m crazy because I tell them that their candidate won’t win. They act as if I oppose the issues that their candidate stands for. Oddly enough, I don’t necessarily disagree with thim on the issues! I just know that based on various dynamics and circumstances that we are in, their candidate is unelectable.
It’s not that I necessarily think that the Presidential election is a complete popularity contest. I do believe that some voters have truly researched their candidates and are voting according to their conscience.
But while truly educated voters do exist, there are several more that aren’t. It’s almost as if the candidates have to “trick” the American public into voting for them because honest and logical persuasion is merely an afterthought.
In conclusion, this post is not necessarily an argument against democracy, but rather an argument for an American public that will truly research its candidates based on ideology and principle rather than personality and popularity. I want Americans to see through the smokescreen of trivial circumstances and examine the candidates based on their stances. Until that is achieved, Churchill is making one heck of an argument against democracy.
Posted by Braden 
Braden's Take on the Matter 