’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.

 

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Editorials

it’s not racial

That’s the best answer I can give to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson who wants to make Barack Obama’s standings in the polls about his race. It’s not about that. He asks if “white America” is ready to elect an African-American as our President, and cites our previous history with segregation, slavery, and civil rights.  There’s no question that we have struggled as a nation with racism, and to some degree we still do. But the only ones who seem to be obsessed with Obama’s race are the media. They keep bringing it up as if we SHOULD care about it.

Most Americans will vote based on which candidate they feel is the most capable of leading this country.  Many of the South Carolina Democrats in the poll he mentions are probably supporting Hillary over Barack for this reason, not because of racism. It doesn’t look like a coincidence that Mr. Robinson mentions South Carolina as part of the “white America” that he claims could keep Obama from the nomination. Even though I don’t generally give any Democrats the benefit of the doubt, I think that Robinson is trying to make a connection that isn’t there.  There may be a few who will not vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, or Barack because he’s African-American.  That’s not representative of the whole state of South Carolina, nor is it representative of this country overall.  I resent the implication that the main reason Barack isn’t making up much ground on Hillary in the polls in South Carolina and elsewhere is because of his race.  There are other reasons for that, but nothing that makes for an exciting story on the frontpage of a website or newspaper.

Americans deserve more credit than they are being given here. We can judge for ourselves whether a candidate has the right combination of charisma, experience, and leadership to be our choice for President. We can judge for ourselves what kind of President that candidate would be, not based on race, gender or even religion – and we don’t need the media’s approval for our choice.  The candidates on both sides would be wise to keep that in mind.

Tags: ,

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

mostly unedited thoughts on the youtube debate

I was about to give the YouTubers credit for keeping the conversation serious, and then the second half of the debate happened.  Of course I think CNN gets most of the blame for this.  Maybe the entertainment factor is a good thing for political junkies who are close to getting burned out with all these debates. I Loved the snowman video as well as the one with the folks from TN, and the singing tax guy.

Quick takes on the candidates:

Hillary Clinton – continues to impress.  Who’s going to stop her from getting to the finish line? Not any of these guys.  She was asked about whether she considers herself a liberal.  Of course not. She’s a “progressive” just like all the  other Democratic proponents of expanding government.

Barack Obama – ok, but not spectacular.  Had a few good answers.  Maybe it’s unfair to compare him to Hillary.  Made a strong defense of his approach (more affordable coverage) to health care vs. John Edwards’ approach(mandating coverage).

John Edwards – Hair looked good as always.  Nice tie. Got more than enough time to talk about his signature issues.  Would have loved to hear him go into more detail on his statement in Cleveland regarding a national fund to help people in danger of losing their homes.

Biden – one of the many “truth to power” candidates on Iraq. I don’t mean that he is right about everything he says.  Just that he seems to have a more realistic take on the aftermath of Iraq than most of the other candidates. He also had a few great lines…which I will get to shortly.

Richardson – didn’t make any major gaffes (that I noticed anyway)

Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel-  The problem that all these second to fourth tier guys have is that all the niche groups are taken by the top 5. That is, except for the rabidly anti-war group.  Kucinich is a true believer.  You have to credit him for that.  The problem is that, despite what all the polling seems to be telling us, this is not where the country is on the Iraq war and on pre-emptive war in general. Both Kucinich and Gravel kept the debate from getting too serious, but the format of this debate would have made that impossible anyway.

This debate is more about entertaining the public then informing them on the issues.  Buried in the zany videos there have been some serious questions that, as always have only gotten sound-bite type answers.  Kucinich wants us to text for peace. Yup.  I think that it would be more useful to text Kucinich himself and tell him that his time is up as a candidate.
Continue reading →