Given the crop of presidential wannabees all jumping into the fray in the past two weeks, I’m beginning to think that perhaps it’s time for me to throw my hat in the ring as well. The way things are going, if I don’t hurry, I may be the last guy in America that ISN’T running for President in ’08. (Vote for Doug– he’ll cut taxes and kick some butt over in Iraq and Iran, solving the problem once and for all. Doug’s plan calls for winning the hearts and minds of any survivors. Oh, and he’ll build a wall as high and deep as necessary along the entire length of the southern border.) Unfortunately, I am otherwise occupied and hereby announce that I will NOT run for the Presidency in ’08. Because of this, I am desperately seeking a candidate I can support to do the job in my stead. Let’s review…
.
I’ll consider the Republicans first. Being a conservative, I’m fairly certain that whoever I end up supporting, he or she will most likely be of the GOP. I will review the Dems in a second posting to follow from the viewpoint of which one scares me the least. Partisan? Definitely– Not in a Repub/Dem way but in a conservative/liberal vein. The list is in alphabetical order, NOT in some kind of preference order. It includes declared and speculative candidates. I am using the list as presented on Ron Gunzburger’s Politics1.com site, which is an excellent starting point for candidate investigations for anyone who is so inclined.
-
Senator Sam Brownback:– He’s very conservative on the issues– he and I are in agreement on many. His name recognition at this point is mostly derived from recent Sunday morning appearances on the talking-heads shows– where he generally seems articulate and knowledgable– until this past Sunday. When pressed by Chris Wallace to substantiate his claim of being different than the other conservatives in the race, his inabilty to answer made him sound like he "shoulda stayed in a Holiday Inn last night." Certainly he’s a longshot, at best. Oh, and he’s pro-amnesty.
-
Jim Gilmore: Former Virginia Gov. who’s great on the borders, the tax issue, and small government beliefs. He announced an exploratory committee on January 9th and has no web presence, other than a draft Gilmore site run by others. A grasp of the new media is an important criteria for me as I assess candidates. He looks particularly strong, however, in homeland security issues. After all, his state was one of the ones attacked on 9/11 (Pentagon is in VA) This previous post features a report from Ed Naile of the CNHT who had a chance to meet in a small group with Gilmore. Perhaps Jim will take off? He’s got a long ways to go, for sure.
-
Newt Gingrich: 5 main issues: 1. Securing America and her Allies By Defeating our Enemies; 2. Defending God in the Public Square; 3. Protecting American Civilization; 4. Competing and Winning in a Global Economy; 5. Promoting Active, Healthy Aging. Almost sounds like some sort of "contract," doesn’t it? Newt is this campaign’s wildcard. He is the one guy that, whenever he appears on TV, I tend to bump into people the next day who ask me if I saw Newt. He is extremely active in all media, has multiple websites, and needs neither spokesmen or cue cards to articulate a coherent, plain argument that is easily understood by ordinary folks. He is one of but a handful of people in the world that is recognized by first name (i.e. Hillary, Diana, Condi, Rush) alone. While he’s not yet declared his intentions, he still has a leg up on all but a couple of the wannabees in many aspects of a run. He’s my kind of politician who leads by actions on the issues. DO SOMETHING and, if it’s good, people will follow. For what it’s worth (hopefully a lot), Newt came in first in RWN’s right of center bloggers’ poll. And then there’s his recent joint editorial effort with the next guy on the list…
-
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani: Ordinarily, as a conservative, looking at Rudy for more than a fleeting moment would be highly unlikely. He’s bad on guns, life, and traditional marriage. If it were a September 10th world, these issues would automatically rule him out. But it is not that world anymore. A case can be made that we are at the beginning of a long, new world war that will come whether we like it or not. For me, nothing trumps the war in importance. Sadly, President Bush has been remarkably inept at the leadership required to rally the Nation in a sustainable way. "America’s Mayor" would be much more effective, I’m sure. And what about the op-ed he co-wrote with Newt Gingrich for the Jan 12th Wall Street Journal? It is an excellent piece, supporting the US in an attempt to win in Iraq, offering suggestions from past NYC experiences in bringing work-ethics to the Iraqis as an alternative to joining warlord and gang factions. RUDY GIULIANI AND NEWT GINGRICH?! Hmmm. You don’t suppose that we would be offered a Giuliani/Gingrich ticket? What do you think? After all, we can’t allow a second Clinton Administration. The stakes are too high. I think this would be a very strong combination. His visit to NH last weekend was a huge hit, and he resonates with so-called "independents."
-
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel: Gack! I know of NOBODY who likes this guy, other than Democrats, because he gives Republicans fits. He is SO wrong on the war. And while the Dems might like him, they wouldn’t vote for him. I can’t believe he’ll actually run.
-
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: Most conservatives kinda know who he is, but beyond political "junkie" circles, his name brings mostly blank stares when mentioned. I’m pretty sure I agree with him on many issues– or maybe not. I don’t think America is ready to elect a former Baptist Minister as President. Not that I have a problem with that, but America at large, no matter if wrong, probably would. Of course, being from Arkansas, the normal taint of potential scandals from the past are never far off. He does have a nice website for his Hope For America PAC, which features podcasts. Who knows– maybe his breakout will be via the New Media.
-
California Congressman Duncan Hunter: As I noted in this previous post, Hunter probably most accurately reflects where I stand on many issues, especially "peace through strength." An enemy that fears consequences won’t mess with us. His campaign structure, unfortunately, seems weak. He was here in the state Monday, and I didn’t get a single "heads-up" via any of the New Media that I traverse. I have acquaintances close to his campaign that never thought to drop an email to promote the event. For a guy that acknowledges a lack of name recognition, this isn’t good. It’s a new political era out there, guys. Woe to the candidate that doesn’t engage in the latest field of battle…
-
Arizona Sen. John McCain: For me as a conservative, McCain is the one guy that is most easy to write off at first blush- McCain Feingold, the "gang of 13", softness on enemy interrogation, lovey-dovey photos of him and Hillary Clinton, etc. But then there’s the war. That’s the thing that matters most above all else to me. He is generally right on the Iraqi front of the new world war. And he is a military guy. To be the president, one must know how to organize supporters and get the message out. McCain has one of the best "new media" organizations of the bunch– recognizing early on the value of this new political arena. This is important for any leaders moving forward in our high-tech era. Bush’s failure at educating and communicating to the public is one of the larger contributing factors to the disintegration of support for the war by the American people. Another point to ponder– could it be that McCain’s "maverick" ways, those which repulse conservatives like me, might cause enough "moderates" to vote for him as opposed to the Democrat? Even people mad at Bush, I’d bet. As I said, the war’s the main thing for me… and electing a Democrat is almost synonymous with losing it. Electabilty is important. "But Doug, what about your priciples?" Yeah, I still got ’em, but they’ll be safer without a Democrat in the Oval Office.
-
Former NY Gov. George Pataki: I read in one of the papers this week that he told potential supporters to feel free to back other candidates. WMUR NewsNine reported the same this morning. Something tells me that most already were. He was the guest of honor several years back at a local GOP dinner and was one of the most uninspiring politicians I had ever heard, other than maybe Bob Dole. Say goodbye to George!
-
Texas congressman Ron Paul: In a perfectly conservative world, this would be the guy. Unfortunately, it’s not. Too bad.
-
Former MA Gov. Mitt Romney: In a perfectly conservative world, this would be your guy… so he claims. While today’s version of candidate Mitt talks a conservative game on the issues, his recent past does not. Whether it was guns, abortion, or Ronald Reagan, Romney sounded more like Ted Kennedy than some defender of the right just a few short years ago. The authenticity of his recent conversions is still in question. Will his record of flip-flopping on "core beliefs", the proof of which is widespread throughout the blogosphere, be a large problem in a run against a determined and ruthless Democrat nominee in the general election? Can Republicans chance it?
-
Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo: Meeting with him one on one several years ago, I was rather impressed with what he had to say. To me, he was putting forth ideas that would form a solid foundation upon which to grow a potential campaign. Interviewing him on the radio (podcast here) several weeks back, unfortunately, left me feeling that he hasn’t done much in the last few years to expand his horizons. When asked about Iraq, he did a lot of talking, but really said nothing. His "plan" sounded a lot like "redeployment" which, in my view, is NOT an option. Again, as I noted above, the war trumps everything. While Tom’s great on the border issue, that’s all he’s got. He would make a great Homeland Security director.
-
Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson: His "Three Iraqi States" idea is intriguing to me. It is perhaps the right fallback option if the current strategy fails. I want to know his thoughts on Iran. His stint as Secretary of Health & Human Services is helpful in the age of bioterrorism threats, bird-flu, etc. Does he have a plan for health care that fixes the current mess? I would peg Thompson in the "longshot" category at this point. Despite his time at HHS, he is another candidate sorely lacking name recognition.
So there’s the list, as of Feb 1st, 2007. While I have written about each candidate in a way that clearly identifies my more favored at this point, I am still firmly undecided. Will Condi join in? It’s unlikely, but if she did, she certainly would get some serious consideration from me. With upcoming debates here in NH, the next few months will bring a better picture as to how things might shake out.
