’08 Election

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

good idea

The New York Post sez that NBC should replace the not-so-objective Chris Matthews as a moderator for Tuesday’s GOP debate.  I see no problem with this. Chris Matthews is a clear partisan.  He cannot be objective and fair, and the candidates will be subjected to a bunch of really stupid pointless questions that they will feel obligated to answer.  I hope that the candidates will call him out when he steps over the line, because that would be good TV.  If Rudy’s smart, he will be the one to take advantage of the opportunity.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

the problem with fred

I’m sure Fred Thompson is a good guy.  I’m also sure that there were many persuasive people telling him that he could be the one to save the GOP from Rudy McRomney, and no doubt Thompson is more conservative in some areas than the current top three.  But it’s fair to say that there was no way that Fred Thompson could be the savior of the GOP, or another Ronald Reagan, or the “one true conservative”.  His record in the Senate is mixed, and it resembles John McCain’s on illegal immigration and campaign finance reform, two areas where McCain runs into trouble with the base.

There are many objections I have to James Dobson critiquing possible GOP nominees, but I have to agree with him, and with what Quin Hillyer wrote in the American Spectator, when they suggest that Fred Thompson doesn’t act like he wants to be the nominee or to be President.  It’s an admirable quality in a candidate, I guess, not to look like they were planning their Presidential run for many years before taking the plunge. However, if Fred wants to continue to be taken seriously as a candidate, he has to start doing his homework on the issues of the day.  He can’t go to Florida and not know about the local issues (Terri Schiavo, drilling in the Everglades).  If he’s going to be an advocate for conservatism, he needs to know what he believes and why he believes it.  He can’t get by on Southern charm alone.  Ask Mike Huckabee how much money his campaign gets from his great personality and folksy speeches.

It’s not just the objection to Rudy, Mitt, and McCain that drives conservatives to look for someone else. All three men have flaws I can live with as the GOP nominee.  Conservatives are looking for someone with a vision, a new direction for our party, and a direction for our country.  We need someone who is bold enough to tell us the truth about where the Republican party has failed the people of this country.  We need someone who knows what is wrong and how we can fix the GOP. We want to be inspired with big ideas and someone with the kind of vision for change that Newt Gingrich has (only in a more electable package).   It’s no wonder that all of the candidates don’t quite measure up to those high standards.

Fred Thompson could be the guy who could unite most of the base,  but he can’t just coast through this process if he wants to be the nominee.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

enough

I get the frustration with the Republican candidates currently running for President among the social conservative types.  Every single interest group has some bone to pick with the top three – Rudy, Mitt, or Fred — so nobody is happy with those choices.  If only Brownback, or Hunter, or Huckabee only had more money — the social conservatives would rally around one of those candidates and they would be happy. Maybe the situation will change with Huckabee, but I just don’t see it happening for any of the other so-con approved candidates.

As a social conservative myself, I have reservations about Rudy Giuliani as far as what kind of judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court.  I am also concerned that his stormy personal life may become an issue later on in the campaign, although I’m not sure why Hillary would want to start that kind of discussion if she’s the Dem nominee.  What is working in Rudy’s favor is his record in NY, as well as his leadership on 9/11. The latter is the main reason many social conservatives have given him their support.  I haven’t decided to support Rudy yet, although I might change my mind later on.

My concern with Rudy is partially based on the reasons I have already given, and also based on his limited executive experience.  It’s not that successfully managing New York City is a small achievement. He can rightfully boast about his record there.  But what else is there?  What other items on his resume can he point to to show that he has the right stuff to be President?  I hate to say this, but without his remarkable leadership on 9/11, Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t even be in the discussion for President of the United States.

That said…

I am disgusted by the spoiled, whiny, look-at-me-I’m-still-important, leaders in the Christian right community who would support a third party candidate if Rudy is the Republican party nominee. It’s a bad idea. Don’t they realize that if the social conservative vote is further split, Hillary wins?  As long as Rudy doesn’t win…right? They don’t speak for me, and they don’t speak for many social conservatives who share their moral values.  Power doesn’t just corrupt politicians. It corrupts religious leaders as well.  I am concerned that the church has forgotten its mission: to bring the message of Christ to a lost world. It’s not our job to pick presidential candidates.

Like I said, I’m not sold on any of the top three, including Fred, and it’s hard for me to imagine donating money or time to any of these campaigns right now.  But if Rudy is the nominee, he’s still better than Hillary. That will be enough for my vote.

 

Posted on '08 Election, Iraq, Liberals

duh

Apparently there are still folks who not only believe the Democrats have made a serious attempt to end the war in Iraq, they also believe that electing a Democrat as President in 2008 will mean all of the troops come home. Unless the country decides to take a chance on Kucinich, Gravel, or Richardson, it’s not going to happen. The left would have a better shot at this outcome if a Democrat was elected, of course, but Hillary hasn’t committed to the kind of troop withdrawal they want. They know this, which is why there are so many posts on the progressive blogs chastising the Dems for giving in to Bush on the war in Iraq. They are right to be critical, since if the Democrats really wanted to end the war and bring the troops home, they could refuse to fund the war. It’s politically suicidal, but many on the left don’t care much about that. Why should they? It’s not their jobs on the line.

Carolyn Lockhead expands on this point in the San Francisco Chronicle, trying to give her fellow travelers a clue. Good luck with that, Carolyn.

Tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

rudy scores

The Democrats had to know that their direct and indirect shots at General Petraeus wouldn’t work in their favor. They allowed their hatred of Bush to cloud their judgment during their questioning of the general. One would expect the Democrats to act in a more mature fashion than a political advocacy group such as MoveOn.org. Perhaps our expectations are too high for these bitter partisans. There’s nothing Congressional Democrats won’t do to prove themselves worthy of the favor of the anti-war left.

Rudy Giuliani seized the opportunity to denounce the ad by MoveOn calling Petraeus a traitor, and he is running a counter-ad in the New York Times. This is one case where a brilliant political move and a necessary challenge to the anti-war left can be accomplished with one ad. MoveOn needed to be called out on this, and none of the Democrats were willing to challenge them. All of the Republican candidates were quick to praise Petraeus and the Bush speech, and they said all the right things. But it is Rudy who has taken the fight to the Democrats, and that’s one more reason why he continues to lead in the national polls.

Tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

exit strategy

After last night’s debate, I think Ron Paul needs to make a graceful exit from the presidential race. It’s not because his ideas aren’t worth discussing, although I think that it would be hard to make the case for eliminating the FBI and CIA post-911. He was right to point out that our intelligence agencies didn’t work as well together as they should have leading up to the tragedy of September 11 as well as the war in Iraq. That problem can’t be fixed by spending less money on intelligence, yet this is what Paul seems to be suggesting. And whether you agree with Ron Paul’s assessment of the Iraq war or not, I don’t think that Paul represents a realistic approach to dealing with threats to our national security in the Islamic world. That’s not where the Republican party is on national security and the war in Iraq, and the more he tries to sell his withdrawal plans, the less convincing he becomes. The prescription by Dr. Paul is the wrong one, and we need to seek a second opinion.

This isn’t about shutting down alternative points of view to the Republican front-runners. Ron Paul has had more than enough time to make his case to the voters of this country, and it’s time to recognize that he hasn’t managed to do that. Not only that, but he has become a punching bag for Giuliani and Huckabee, which can’t do much for his credibilty or viability as a candidate. I think we have heard enough from Ron Paul to decide that he isn’t the right person to lead our party in the next election.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats

another presidential debate you didn’t see

Come on, Democrats — what are you trying to hide having a Sunday morning debate in Iowa? 😉 Not that one more debate would change my mind about the Democratic field or anything…but the timing is just as bad for Democrats as it is for Republicans. 

Transcript here if you’re interested, although you won’t find any surprises in it. I haven’t made up my mind about the Republican field, but I do know I won’t be voting for any of these Democrats.  I do agree with Barack Obama on one thing though — there are too many debates.

 

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Random Musings

picks to click v.1

Courtesy of Real Clear Politics via Foreign Affairs mag:

Rudy Giuliani “Toward a Realistic Peace” vs. John Edwards “Reengaging with the World“.

Whatever you may think of Rudy as a presidential candidate, you certainly can’t say that he hasn’t thought much about the next steps in our foreign policy and the war against terrorists. His knowledge and understanding of that subject is what’s keeping him in the top tier. That’s the only reason social conservatives are willing to accept a socially liberal candidate, and why everyone else is so willing to excuse Giuliani for his previous views on illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities. Speaking of Giuliani, there is a mammoth profile of him in The New Yorker, which is definitely worth the time it takes to read if you are considering supporting Giuliani to win the nomination.

Earmarks are still with us. Heck of a job, Democrats.

Rove resigns. The amazing part is that Rasmussen actually found that 25% of the Democrats he polled liked Karl Rove. That can’t be possible, can it? I think the legacy of Karl Rove will be that he was better at winning elections than he was at helping Dubya getting his agenda through Congress — and that the genius label was somewhat undeserved.

Also, from Cao’s blog, Kender says: “I Think I Shall Become A Socialist“. And the Dems will take care of me….LOL.

If that’s not enough links for you, just go read IMAO. There’s always something funny to read there. Just scroll down a few posts.

More serious analysis and debate will return soon after I finish this book. Until then talk among yourselves. 😉

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Random Musings, Republicans

thoughts on ames: part 2

People of faith, and Christians in particular, need to get out of the political king-making business. We have more important things we need to be worrying about than who wins elections. We condemn elitists. We say that politicians are out of touch with our values. And you know what? We are absolutely right to be doing that. But we cannot, and we should not, be telling people to vote for or against a candidate because of the level of their belief or non-belief in God. With all the flaws in the Democratic strategy over the years, I don’t recall them ever fighting about which candidate is more religious, and basing their support on who appears to love God the most. It’s a stupid argument that we are having here, and we need to recognize that the more important characteristic than a person’s religion is how competently that person can run the US government and how aggressive she/he is in protecting this country from foreign enemies, both terrorists and rogue regimes seeking nukes. If we can find someone as a Republican nominee who will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court in addition to that, that would be a bonus.

We have to ask ourselves how aggressive we want the federal government to be as advocates for a social conservative agenda. Do we really want government programs to push an agenda that would be better carried out in the private sector with non-profits and charities rather than adding another appendage to the government monolith? I would like a candidate who is a social conservative and who shares my values, but I would have to think about whether I want the government to be funding religious activity. The reason for that is that what government funds, it will eventually control. I don’t want the government to have any control over religious organizations at all. So keep funding of faith-based organizations in the private sector where it belongs.

Many of the social conservatives running for president seem to want to have an activist government on social policy. Is that really what we want? Here’s something else to consider. Is it the government’s job to provide free health care to all Americans? Is it the government’s job to ensure that people can afford a house? Is it the government’s job to make sure that you have a job?

No. It is not.

If we say that we are for limited government, and we actually mean it, then this should mean that the candidate we nominate should be more interested in protecting our country than protecting our faith. That’s what churches are for. That’s what our pastors are for. That’s the role of our families. That’s not the role of our government.

Tags: , , ,