Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Republican Run-Down

Well, it's Super Tuesday and after repeated requests, here's my VERY SHORT run down on the Republican candidates.

Huckabee:
Summary:
Contrary to some responses to my article comparing Huckabee to a High School Homecoming Queen, I actually quite like Huckabee. In fact, I lament the fact that I could not, in good conscience, cast my vote for him in this election season. I hope he stays on the political stage and grows a bit into the holistic package I demand in the person receiving my vote for the Presidency or as a Presidential nominee.

Pro's:
  1. Huckabee is an unabashed, consistent and determined pro-life candidate. There is really no other issue I consider to serve as quite such an integral nexus of moral and political worlds.
  2. He was a successful Governor, reelected two times, in a Democratic state and winning 40% of black voters. This is the sort of record we need more leaders to strive for in the GOP.
  3. He is obviously incredibly well spoken. Since Reagan, Republicans have evidenced a peculiar ineptitude at explaining the principles informing their positions. Polls repeatedly demonstrate that most American's are inclined toward the central pillars of conservative thought (smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, individual achievement, family values, military strength, and favoring life). If we could have a few politicians use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to communicate past media distortions, perhaps more American's would realize that these are not the central themes of the Democratic party.


Con's:
  1. Huckabee is a novice (at best) and dangerous (at worst) in terms of foreign policy. In a highly publicized speech and in an article for Foreign Affairs magazine, Huckabee stated that “all our troubles” with Iran started with Bush's Axis of Evil speech. Never mind the taking of American hostages from our Embassy. Who cares about those Marines blown up by Iranian agents in Beirut? Hezbollah? No, their now an Iranian front group occupying Lebanon and fomenting civil war for decades. I guess those weren't really Iranian munitions and gun boats arming the 2 Palestinian intifada's – against even UN mandates? He also compared our issues with Iran to be similarly handled to relational disagreements one may have with a friend of family member. This comparison only works if your estranged relationship is with a murderous, nuclear armed, religious Zealot who has repeatedly pursued genocide. What is concerning is that Huckabeereally believes this rhetoric and is completely naïve and ill equipped to be Commander in Chief or he doesn't really believe this anti-Bush charge and is willing to sacrifice American resolve in an age of nuclear terror for the sake of his own campaign. You decide. Neither is exactly inspiring of confidence.
  2. Ok, maybe he isn't a policy wonk on Iran, but surely he would listen to his advisers on these matters if he were elected President. One would certainly hope this to be the case. Yet, early evidence confronts these honest hopes. One need look no further than the Foreign Affairs article written above. Such articles are not dictated off the cuff late one night on the campaign bus. These sorts of major policy pronouncements get vetted through selected advisors. So, yes, Huckabee probably did work with advisors, but not any I want in the White House. Huckabee once mentioned several conservatives as being his advisors on international affairs. Unfortunately, they publicly stated their amazement at this pronouncement – none claiming to have met or corresponded with Huckabee more than one. Once of the aforementioned “advisors” is Michael Ledeen – a widely acknowledged expert on Iran. He stated he has specifically met with Huckabee and strongly explained why dealing with Iran is different, on a life and death level, than a Pastor might counsel an troubled couple. Huckabee chose to not follow advisors of this sort and opted for dangerous, irresponsible and uninformed rhetoric.
  3. But is Life is your most important issue, shouldn't you vote of Huckabee? The answer would be, “yes”, if the only other choice was to vote for candidates favoring abortion. Both McCain and Romney have actual records of standing for pro-life positions and legislation. I do think Huckabee is more principled and solid on pro-life issues, but it's not as though he's the only pro-lifer in the race. I see being pro-life as more than anti-abortion. If you can't clearly stand against theocratic extremist, nuclear armed, consistently active terrorists – then I question your stance for protecting American life.


McCain:
Summary:
Conservative talk radio is all abuzz about McCain's lack of conservative credentials. My guess is that McCain is a clear favorite for the nomination as of this writing. I have some differences of opinions on specific McCain issues with these radio talkers, but won't write about those until after tonight's vote. In the end, my summary of McCain is this. He is clearly erratic in terms of issues importance to the party's base. Yet, he has a lifetime rating of being a consistently conservative legislator on issues of importance and a brand that may actually attract independent voters.


Pro's:
  1. McCain is obviously very clear on issues of national defense and pro-life issues. McCain, unfortunately did vote to fund embryonic stem cell research. Recent science, however, has nearly rendered this issue moot. Leading scientists, including the one who successfully cloned Dolly the sheep, have stated that recent successes in converting adult skin cells into multi-potent stem cells is cheaper than cloning embryonic stem cells and shows more promise as it limits the carcinogenic and rejection issues inherent in introducing cloned embryonic stem cells into adult hosts.
  2. McCain has attracted a top-flight team of advisors on the economy (Jack Kemp, Phil Graham, and Steve Forbes) and on nominating conservative judges (Ted Olson). Say what one likes about McCain's “dangerous” positions on Imigration, Campaign Finance Reform and Global Warming, but on key issues of government spending, taxation, the Supreme Court and national defense, McCain is strong.
  3. The very thing that ticks off most Conservatives about McCain – his gruff demeanor and willingness to “buck” the system – is what makes him attractive to independents. He is the only candidates from either party who can convincingly run on his government experience AND still claim to carry the mantel of change.

Con's:
  1. McCain's Achilles Heel this same personal demeanor that makes him attractive. The Dem's will poke and poke and poke at him. They will use every trick in the book. They will make themselves look small, negative and unattractive. All for one purpose – to send McCain into a red-faced rage in front of the cameras. At that point, all punditry becomes focused on the topic of whether America wants an emotionally uncontrolled curmudgeon at the helm of our nuclear arsenal and interfacing and responsible for building international coalitions.
  2. If Obama is the Dem nominee, the race may be a repeat of sweaty Nixon debating young, vibrant Kenedy. Further, in such a match-up, both men are poised to gain independent voters. But only Obama also electrifies and mobilizes his base. I seriously doubt McCain bashers will refuse to support or vote for him, but they are less likely to make phone calls, host house meetings, go door-to-door, bus folks to the polls and do all the other things only a committed base will do to win an election.


Romney:
Summary:
Conservatives are seemingly rallying to Romney in great numbers. Today will tell the tale. I think Romney has a real story to tell in terms of his experience and if the economy remains a strong issue in the general election, I think Romney stands a strong chance of doing well. At present, I doubt he can win the GOP nomination, but I do think a strong showing for him today and his continued presence in the race does great things to frame debate within the party and hopefully may cause McCain to take steps further toward the base. (Well, a boy has got to have hope!).

Pro's:
  1. Experience. Romney just oozes credibility in terms of Executive decision making.
  2. While many conservatives are dubious of Romney's “conviction” on issues such as pro-life, gun control, and homosexual marriage, I don't quite understand the concern. Yes, Romney certainly does seem, on some issue, to be more fluid than one may like. But in terms of the issues listed above, Romney actually governed, unambiguously as a conservative. He tells a compelling and detailed story as to his conversion – exactly what most conservatives claim to want from people. Instead, he's greeted as a flip-flopped. Only, form my perspective he has never flipped and then flopped. He's only shown a progression in one direction.
  3. Money. Non-one knows how much he has, but it is estimated to be in the Billions. Even McCain's campaign finance reform can't stop Romney from spending his own money on his own candidacy. The playing field has changed and Dem's now raise alarmingly more money than do Republicans. Romney's wealth will assist in leveling this field until we can get our fundraising gears re-aligned to the new world.


Con's:
  1. Romney's experience in the business world, while being his strongest suite, is also one of his two greatest weaknesses. The Dem nominee will paint Romney as a mean spirited despoiler of lower and middle class American jobs through downsizing, outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs. If convincingly questioned, Romney will have a hard time making his necessary managerial steps as sounding sufficiently attractive.
  2. Romney's second greatest weakness is his unfortunate lack of ability to motivate anyone. He is eminently competent, but he isn't exciting. Obama's excitement is likely to obviate Romney's competence.

On Principle,
CBass

No comments: