December 12, 2007
For some time now, our political participation has been based on choosing the lesser of two evils. All candidates have flaws, but there always seems to be a candidate with enough good characteristics to hold office.
Unfortunately, it seems there is no candidate, regardless of party affiliation, whom I could pledge 100 percent of my support. When it comes down to it, I’ll probably be voting for whoever gets the Republican nomination. The following is a quick guide to the potential candidates whom I consider the front runners:
If you asked me earlier this year whom I would have supported, it would have been John McCain. It’s easy to overlook his liberal transgressions as he has become more conservative since the 2000 election; he’s still the liberal’s Republican, though. His legislation on campaign finance and immigration reform (aka amnesty for illegals) proves that. Even putting aside the details of the legislation, it should be enough to note that McCain worked with Democratic Sens. Harry Reid, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy.
By pushing for amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens in this country (because that worked in the ’80s, right?) while simultaneously denying the fact that he pushed amnesty for much of 2007, McCain hurt his image. He got booed at a Republican debate for claiming he has always been against amnesty. Seriously.
Other than not having money, being liberal or anti-conservative in all the wrong areas and being on the wrong side of the most important issues facing this country (with the notable exception of Iraq), he’s a great candidate.
Rudy Giuliani is the most intriguing of the bunch. He has a personal life topped only by the Clintons, ideals that change more than John Kerry’s, and he milks a tragedy more than Max “I drop grenades on my feet” Cleland.
Besides dressing up in drag, Giuliani has some huge flaws. His position on abortion and gay marriage is worrisome. The very fact that this man could be the Republican candidate in ’08 has Jerry Falwell rolling in his grave.
However, Giuliani has a few things going for him that may be worth considering before the primaries, specifically crime, national security and certain campaign promises. Unlike many liberals, Giuliani believes the best criminal is a locked up criminal.
Regardless of your political affiliation, it’s pretty evident that Giuliani is using 9/11 to get elected; take away 9/11, and he’s just another great mayor who turned around one of the best cities in America.
He still gets points for national security, though. If McCain gets points for torture and Kerry gets credit for having a military record, albeit a shady one, Giuliani certainly gets that kind of credit. Out of everyone running for president, who understands what happens when we don’t stand up to terrorists better than he does? It’s worrisome as to whether he has enough experience, but God knows he’s seen the horrors of the war on terrorism.
He has also made certain promises that, if kept, will make him an acceptable candidate. For instance, Giuliani assured the voters he would not support partial-birth abortion and was happy when the Supreme Court made it illegal. He also promised voters he would place justices on the Supreme Court who would not legislate from the bench, i.e. conservatives.
Next up, we’ll take on Mitt Romney. I like what the 2007 Romney believes.
He is conservative on the important issues, such as abortion. However, he has changed positions more than Kerry. If one were to listen to his positions while he was running for senator against Ted Kennedy or running for governor of Massachusetts, the change is alarming.
If he was merely saying anything to get rid of Kennedy, he’d deserve a Medal of Honor, but I think it’s deeper than that.
Either Romney was lying then, or he’s lying now. Though it is important to find out which beliefs are really his, he still misconstrued his views at least once. Listening to Romney during a debate or speech suggests that he is failing to hide the fact that he’s a political chameleon. One of my issues with a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry is they have no real political opinions; every decision they make is based on the polls or what will be best for their political future.
The American White House is not “American Idol,” and we need a commander in chief who can make a decision without wondering what Moveon.org or Focus on the Family will think.
My fear is we’ll elect Romney and his 2008 version will be nothing like the 2007 Romney. That and it’s only a matter of time before the Democrats break out the “Flip-Flopper” label. Other than having a phony war record, the “Flip-Flopper” label was the biggest reason Kerry lost in ’04. I could vote for an ’07 Romney given the right assurances, but who knows what the man believes?
Let’s talk about Mike Huckabee. Prior to his advancement in the polls, I wrote a scathing article on Huckabee running as a third-party candidate, and I stand by everything I said.
Huckabee as a third-party candidate would cause the GOP to lose automatically. In fact, it’s doubtful Huckabee could ever win a national election against Clinton or Obama, which is our loss.
Huckabee brings a refreshing honesty to the GOP race. There is no other candidate I can listen to without saying “The political B.S. is killing me” or “He’s crazy; he really is.” When asked if they believed everything in the Bible, Romney and Giuliani stumbled through responses about God’s word and religion in their lives. Only Huckabee was able to provide a sensible answer to the question posed to make all Republicans seem like crazy rednecks, and he had the most to lose with that question.
But I also hate Huckabee. I hate him because if we nominate him, we’ll lose the election. I wrote that in an earlier column, and I stand by it: A Huckabee candidacy will fail because of his flaws. This country will not elect another evangelist, no matter how nice or personable or correct he may be.
It’s the country’s loss.
He could be a viable vice presidential candidate to appease the base, but other than that I don’t see Huckabee in the White House.
Let me sum up my view quickly: I don’t think there is a single Democrat who would not ruin this country. Don’t buy into the rhetoric: Other than Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, none of the Democrats will end the war before 2012.
America already made that mistake once. How’d Harry Reid do with ending the war? That’s what I thought.
Hillary Clinton is the typical corrupt politician. She only cares about elections and more importantly, she barely represents her party. Aside from her suspicious involvements with Vince Foster, Whitewater and Travelgate, she is the anti-feminist. Think about it for a moment. Clinton is running in ’08 for one reason: She won the matrimonial lottery. Had she not married Bill, she would have never won her Senate seat, never would have run for president, etc. She’d be just another corrupt lawyer in Arkansas.
John Edwards? Corrupt trial lawyer who pretended to hear babies in the womb suffering from cerebral palsy.
Bill Richardson gets credit for experience (more than the other candidates combined, really) but seriously, what’s a Mexican-American going to do about illegal immigration?
Barack Obama is the only candidate I would consider if I had to vote for a Democrat. In four to eight years. Get him some experience, and we’ll see. At least he doesn’t lie about most of his positions.
Stay tuned for next week’s podcast about 2008 featuring Emma Feldman, myself and other members of UNscripted.
