Presidential Primary run-down


My take on all the candidates from both sides of the aisle

This blog has been mostly politics free for a little bit (well, its been post free, mostly) but I thought I would finally weigh in on the presidential primaries. This is probably the most exciting primary I've ever witnessed, as it is completely wide open on both sides. So without further ado, here's my take on each of the major candidates.

Democrats:

Obama: Like John Mark Reynolds, he is a Democrat that I want to want to vote for. He is a charismatic man with a compelling story who is obviously very bright. While I have major disagreements with him in policy (universal health care, likely larger taxes/government, and a withdrawal of our troops without finishing the job in Iraq), I wish I didn't so that I could vote for him. I think this makes him a rather formidable force in the general election, as the number of people who are going to object to these policy ideas is less than the number who will be excited about it. (Just to be clear, I think a large majority would object to larger government if anyone could articulate the ultimate consequences of that. On the Republican side, however, who can communicate that? Romney?). It is somehwat accurate to accuse Obama of being big on ideas and small on actual application, but - as Hillary is finding out - its hard to criticize someone who is so positive and charismatic. I also love rooting for Obama because I love nothing better than watching Hillary squirm.

Edwards: I love Edwards, but not for his policies or ideas, nor for his perfect hair. I love the entertainment he brings to the primaries. Edwards is like the kid in grade school who ran for student body president by promising he'd put Coke in all the drinking fountains. How comical is a the idea of a man who is so incomprehensibly rich running a campaign to help others with YOUR money? And how even more funny is it that no one calls him on it?

Clinton: Forget my strong objections to just about every one of her policies. Does anyone think that we need another 4 (or 8?!) years of the Clintons? My generation and those younger than me are already cynical enough - do we really need to have the Presidency controlled by only 2 families for close to 3 decades? I would say most of us are already convinced that we are ruled by an aristocracy of elites, protected by money and established media, such that we are only allowed to select from a few vetted candidates. But only 2 choices? Thats enough to dispirit a good chunk of young voters. This is particularly true sense her only road to victory lies in defeating a candidate that is overwhelmingly appealing to young voters.


Republicans:

Romney: Enough already with the idea that Romney is unappealing to Evangelicals because of his Mormon faith. Michael Medved pretty much put that rumor to rest with facts from the exit polls. I don't know what it is about Romney, but he just doesn't seem to close the deal. He's attractive, has good policy positions, is WELL funded, backed by almost every major pundit, debates well with a strong command of the facts, and yet even I am only half-heartedly thinking of voting for him (mostly by default). If I had to guess I think its due to two things. First, the fact that he has changed his positions since his 1994 run for Senate and, in some ways, since he was Governor. Second, there are some times in which he seems to define his message based on whats popular. For instance, he originally was running mostly as the Reagan conservative. Now, though thats still his main message, he's talking constantly about change now after the Obama/Huck victories. While I think people will grant its ok to alter strategy a bit here and there, Romney's strategy changes sometimes feel like they may indicate principle changes. Which, of course, only serves to raise eyebrows about the first problem I mentioned. Nonetheless, Romney right now is tentatively getting my vote because I think he is being honest in his positions, and he has extensive experience being a solid executive in both the private and public sector.

Huckabee: For a few weeks, Huckabee had overtaken Romney as my candidate. He is charming, has a sharp wit in the debates, and is solid on social conservative issues. The fact that he had the guts to actually make the Fair Tax a big part of his platform also was a big plus (I believe the Fair Tax to be by far the best system of taxation for a number of reasons). The problem is he has done a couple of things that I think are shifty in running for the nomination. For instance, his Clintonesque answers on past problems like the AIDS issue, and his "I think this ad is too negative to run.... but here, let me show it to all of you; there's no WAY it'll be all over TV for free." The other problem is that while he is a very sharp witted and capable debater, he has a real problem with gaffes and being caught without the facts. Part of it is understandable - he can't pay staffers to brief him on all the issues like major candidates can - but its still a major liability.

Ron Paul: Is it rather telling that in my first draft of this post I left Paul off the list? Ron Paul has a lot to like. Long before he was known on the national scene as a presidential candidate, he's been something of a celebrity to conservatives for his "Dr. No" votes against anything unconstitutional. When people see us signing treaties that aren't really treaties (and thus don't need ratification) in order to sort of end a war that isn't really a war (in order to escape a declaration of war), a man who's devotion to the constitution is never in question becomes appealing - to me as well. The problem with Paul, other than the obvious problems of his past racist remarks, is that he is so idealistic he loses grasp with reality. Would a gold standard be better than fiat money? Thats a decent academic debate, but if you think you'd ever get that passed, you're insane. It also seriously blinds him to the threat of islamofacism, which he seems to think will go away if we curl our military up into a North American fetal position and ask everyone to knock it off.

Thompson: To echo John Mark Reynolds, "Was there ever a candidate with more promise who did less than Fred Thompson?" Fred! was supposed to be the White Knight, riding in to save the party in our time of serious lack of candidates. Instead he sorta strode in late,. yawned, and said "sure, whatever... if you make me, I'll be president" The biggest disappointment to me was that he seemed to be someone who could communicate the ideas of Reaganism - being an actor like Reagan himself. But in the debates he hasn't mustered anything memorable and I think the only time I've seen him actually articulate something was when he was attacking Huck by reading off his cue cards. When will the ruling class of conservatives realize that Reaganism NEEDS to be communicated? You can't just argue who is most like Reagan, or who is not a "true" conservative - the younger generations need to be convinced that free market economics actually work and that smaller government is a good thing.

McCain: My favorite comment on McCain is Hughitt's suggestion the John McCain needs a neuralyzer (that cool gadget in Men In Black that erases peoples memories). To conservatives, the list of McCain betrayals is plenty long enough to disqualify him from office - the Gand of 14, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. To some degree, its too bad, because he is a true war hero who is rock solid on pro-life issues and has made criticisms of the war tactics without ever casting doubt on those who serve. He is also staunchly for the war, while being just as resolute in condemning torture - a surprisingly difficult to find attribute at times (certainly among conservative punditry). But his past "maverick" actions indicate a man a little too eager for acceptance in the MSM, and his attacks in the debates and elsewhere show he is not temperamentally suited for president. I have no problem with negative ads or attacking someone's positions/record, but McCain seems to offer very little charity in disagreeing with people, using the same sort of incendiary slander-rhetoric against his own party that bombthrowers of the left employ.

Rudy: Having been to New York City for the first time in my life just recently, I can see the appeal of Rudy. We've all heard tales of the previous dark side of NYC, but they seem almost hard to imagine if you're there now. He is the only executive to actually have dealt with an Islamicist attack - and handled it so well it is reason enough for a lot of people to vote for him. But as much as that is true, Rudy is the Boromir candidate. Like Boromir, he is great on the war and good on little else. Giving him, and his authoritarian tendencies, the powers of presidency in time of war is much like the temptation of the Ring. He would simply have too much power, and his good intentions and strong will to fight might very well be used to awful means. If Rudy wins the nomination, I will have to do some serious soul searching to vote for him - right now, I'd stay home.

Posted: Mon - January 21, 2008 at 11:35 AM | | | | | | |

©