Few things are more evident at this point in the election cycle than the fact that very little is evident, and very few "experts" deserve the title. The forecasters thus far from the political pundit class are doing as badly as could possibly be described, and the nominations for both parties remain completely and totally up in the air. I have no particular interest in the Democratic nomination, other than the fact that I do believe Hillary is a more beatable candidate in the general election, so therefore I do prefer she be selected as their nominee. I also, though, prefer Obama to Hillary as a President, and therefore derive some small degree of comfort if Obama beats Hillary for the nomination (knowing that she at least will be kept out of the White House). Either of them as the nominee is going to be favored to win the Presidency, and both of them are detestable and repugnant selections to hold this high office, so I do not have the emotional energy to follow their primary with the same passion I am following the Republican side. And on that side, I want to make a few comments this evening ...
My friend, Buck Johns, was wise to remind me the other evening of Reagan's 11th commandment ... I have been appropriately critical of several of the Republican candidates running, as all five of them deserve some degree of criticism. We have five imperfect candidates running, and I do not know of a conservative individual who would claim that any of the candidates are "perfectly pedigreed" conservatives. I will go through each candidate individually now and offer a few comments, ultimately reinforcing again why I am supporting the candidate I am, but I want to reiterate what Buck reminded me of the other day: Our opponent is the Democratic nominee, period. I will type and type and pontificate and pontificate between now and the conclusion of the nomination process, but once the nomination is complete, all good and bad points of the four losing candidates become totally obsolete, and essentially all negative aspects of the winning candidate do as well; at that point, the Republican nominee must become the favorite of all of us, because ideologically, that nominee will be the superior person running for President. I do feel Reagan's 11th commandment was intended for the candidates themselves to obey, and I do feel strong words are appropriate to use when describing any of the would-be nominees, but I also want to say that, essentially, we have five good potential nominees, and I will be proud to support any one of them, once they are running against Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama. I wish in the most emphatic of ways that the various flaws I identify in the Republican candidates would be fixed (both political shortcomings, and ideological ones), but ultimately, I see something in each candidate that would make me proud to support them, even with their flaws. And so as I revert to my practice of critiquing what ought to be critiqued in the Republican candidate pool, I reiterate that I am voting for one of these five men, no matter what. I pray 51% of the voting people in this country agree with me.
Before I begin my quick candidate-by-candidate overview, allow me to state my underlying thesis as to how I am approaching this primary process: I want the person to win the nomination, who has the best chance to win in November, regardless of their flaws. I do not expect everyone to agree with this, and I am very content to continue receiving blowback as a result of this thesis, but it needs to be stated from the outset. I believe that the issues facing our country over the next 4-8 years are so crucial, that to approach this election with anything other than a sincere commitment to pragmatic success is immoral. We do not have the luxury, to not be pragmatic, this time around. This thought process guides me through the decisions I have made, and the comments I will now make on each candidate (in no particular order).
Fred Thompson: I can be brief here, because I think his time remaining in the race will be brief as well. My own conviction is that Fred's people misled him a bit, and that he entered the race (far too late), because he was advised that all he had to do was enter, and that the dissatisfaction with Rudy, Romney, and McCain was so high, that the nomination would be his. When Fred's name began surfacing, Romney was polling below Newt Gingrich, who was not in the race, and McCain was losing money and staff faster than Barry Bonds was losing Hall of Fame votes. The Christian Right was threatening a boycott of Rudy, and the race truly looked up for grabs to a candidate of Fred's pedigree. Frankly, if it were not for my electability criteria I describe above, which presupposes that a candidate wants to win (and I am certain that Fred does not want to win), I would be very, very happy to see him as the nominee. He is far more intelligent than several of the candidates running, and he clearly gets the Reagan-message of conservatism. He is up there with Rudy and McCain in properly describing and understanding the nature of our Jihadist enemy, and he is an intelligent, eloquent leader. But, he has no money, no energy, no passion, and no states that will cast delegates for him. Essentially, I can afford to praise him more now, because he is done. I hope he will be considered by the winning candidate as a VP possibility, but I also see a risk there as well (do we want another 65-year old VP who can never run for President?). The candidate Fred endorses when he drops out later this month stands to benefit a great deal, in my humble opinion.
Mitt Romney: No candidate has received more criticism from me over the last several months than Mitt Romney. I remain firmly convinced that he is totally unelectable in this country, as his inability to win his own neighboring state confirms, but beyond that, I have never been convinced of the sincerity of his repeated flip-flops on major issues. Some brilliant men really adore this candidate, and I confess to being amused at the "spin" now being circulated in response to his devastating losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. However, his conservative credentials have not been fully sold to me, and clearly the American people agree. If this were just a measly deca-millionaire, instead of multi-centi-millionaire, we never would have had to have these conversations (he has been unable to win, even while nearly buying the election; he certainly would not even be mentioned if he did not have the financial competitive advantage that he does). I thought his willingness to defend the pharmaceutical companies the other night was one of the more impressive parts of his campaign thus far, and he does seem to have a tremendous feel for the issues. However, he is not convincing, and his Mormonism, while not a sufficient reason for an evangelical like me to vote against him, certainly represents some degree of political handicap come November. If he had not separated himself from Ronald Reagan in 1994, and if he had more genuine of a personality, I may feel differently than I do here. But essentially, he has gotten way more play than his polling ever warranted, and I believe this is the end of the road for him.
Mike Hucakbee: It seems rather foolish to question his ability to win the general election, based on the success he has had in the primary thus far. Everyone has under-estimated him, and one can not help but wonder if the Left would under-estimate him in 2008 as much as the Right did in 2007. Nonetheless, I think his choice of campaign manager is a colossal failure, and I believe his campaign's organization and funding levels are far too inadequate to go the distance. Far all the good things I could say about him, I am totally and thoroughly embarrassed when I hear a professing Christian say things like, "America wants a candidate who reminds them of the guy they work with, and not the guy who fired them"; or when I hear him call the extraordinary "Club for Growth", the "Club for Greed". To publicly validate a perception of Christians as economically confused simpletons who buy into the most sinister of stereotypes about capitalism and the free market is deplorable, and I truly hope he will work at correcting this flaw in his ideology. Populism is a cute word when it is not being described, but it is a terror to a free society when it is put into practice. So while I admire his abilities as a politician, his down-to-earth authenticity, and his quick retort skills, I have to say that he is one of the least appealing of the five candidates running. He seems to go out of his way to show how unqualified he is to guide foreign policy, and I am not backing down that no issue is more important in this election than the war America currently finds herself in with radical Jihadists. Governor Huckabee thinks the right things about the Islamic war, but he seems totally ill-equipped to do anything about it. I am proud to have supported him, and congratulate him on the most admirable defense of the sanctity of human life amongst all the candidates, but I can not endorse him as a nominee given the big picture of what he stands for, and what his chances are of actually winning the Presidency.
John McCain: Given the degree of disappointment I have felt in John McCain over the years, I am most surprised to be feeling the way I now am. I shudder to think about his authoring of McCain-Feingold, and his vote against the Bush tax cuts. I also have sincere doubts about his age and energy levels in the context of defeating the Democratic nominee for the Presidency. Indeed, I was aghast at his silly demonization of the pharmaceutical companies in Saturday night's debate. However, to the extent that I would have a very safe feeling in seeing this man prosecute the war on terror, and to the extent that I believe he is very serious about cutting government spending in non-military, non-defense categories, I believe he would be a good President. I read very compelling arguments for his electability, and I read very compelling arguments that he would have no chance of winning. At the end of the day, I do not know if our party will nominate him after all the bruises the relationship has taken, but I do know that he is an American hero, and his positives outweigh his negatives at the end of the day.
Rudy Guiliani: I started this primary process nearly a year ago believing Rudy to be the least desirable of all the candidates. As a devout pro-lifer, and one keenly aware of the political clout evangelicals have in this country, I did not take his candidacy seriously for several months. As I began attending events with the Mayor, however, and as I got closer inside of his campaign and message, I became warmer and warmer to the idea of a Rudy Guiliani Presidency. With the earlier stated caveat that electability is [justifiably] my most important criterion, and with the added caveat that the war against Islamo-Fascism is the most important issue facing us as a country, I remain firmly convinced that Rudy is the candidate most worthy of our support. If I thought he represented a threat to the pro-life cause as it pertains to the High Court, I would have a more nuanced position. However, his commitment to strict constructionist judges renders that concern obsolete, and his aggressive and highly intelligent perspective on World War IV is a sight to behold. He is an ardent free trader and tax-cutting supply-sider, contra the economic populism of some of the other candidates. He is a flawed individual personally, who may very well have huge political handicaps to overcome in his personal life. However, the political data, and my own fondness for his political commitments, have all led me to determine he is the candidate most worthy of our support in the primary. At this point, it is a complete and total question mark as to whether or not he is viable as the nominee. One could persuasively argue that he is the biggest beneficiary of the first few primaries, as Huckabee and McCain's success have not done enough to solidify anything for them, but have done enough to essentially solidify an end to the Thompson and Romney campaigns. Rudy's untested strategy all along has been to stay alive until Super Tuesday. In several weeks, we will know if it was a winning strategy or not. I do not know if Rudy can or will defeat Hillary/Obama or not, but I do believe he gives us the best chance, and I believe a Rudy Presidency does the two most important things the next election can do: It maintains an ethically vigorous stance against America's enemies abroad, and it protects our hard-earned dollars here at home.
There is a virtual eternity between now and November, and undoubtedly, dozens of more unfulfilled predictions and promises are still to be posited. But for those reading this, from the worst of the political junkies, to the reasonably apathetic, I simply offer this reminder in closing:
Anyone putting their faith in politics to solve the world's woes will be sorely disappointed. It is the people that must change; not the politicians that the people demand. The substantive changes we all want in society do not come from Washington D.C., but must come from the culture at-large, and more importantly, from the minds and hearts of the people themselves. We will always get the government we deserve. This year, I pray we will deserve better than what I predict is coming.
READ MORE - Some Commentary on the Nomination Circus
