In fact, I've been trying for years to find such a candidate.
In this election cycle, I thought I'd found my candidate in Sen. Sam Brownback. Sen. Brownback was and is a good man, but he didn't quite "get it" on illegal immigration, and proved not to be such a good candidate at the national level. I left his bandwagon shortly before he dropped out of the race.
I thought I'd found my candidate in Rep. Duncan Hunter. He's pretty much right on pretty much all the issues, requiring no major compromises from any of the major components of the traditional Republican coalition. But evidently he was not able to put together anything like the national organization that a presidential candidate needs, and never got very far. He pulled out yesterday, after his poor finish in the Nevada caucuses and it's really too bad.
I was on the verge of joining the Fred Thompson movement, but he did so poorly in South Carolina, where he really needed to do well, that he is widely rumored to be on the verge of quitting the race as well. Frankly, I believe that Thompson, given his low energy level on the campaign trail, would fare as badly in November as did Bob Dole in '96.
So I've had to re-evaluate the remaining candidates. Let me quickly review them again:
No Democrat candidate can be considered. They are all actively and proudly pro-death.
Of the remaining Republicans:
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. I cannot support him, not even if he's nominated. A twice-divorced, thrice-married, cross-dressing, non-practicing Catholic who believes that abortion is a right, who believes that gun ownership isn't, who opposes the defense of traditional marriage... need I go on?
Senator John McCain of Arizona. Has a poor record of leadership on abortion issues, supports federal funding of recreational embryo-destructive stem cell research, opposes defense of traditional marriage, opposed the Bush tax cuts, and has such baggage as the Keating 5, the Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold, and McCain-Kennedy. I can't.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Until recently pro-death. As governor of Massachusetts, he failed to prevent gay "marriage". At the first GOP debate, he indicated his willingness to see Terri Schiavo starved and dehydrated to death; this indicates that his pro-life conversion hasn't worked its way through all its implications yet, at best. I frankly don't trust the sincerity of his conversion. But even if he's sincere, I want a president who can win at beating back gay "marriage". I'm also made nervous about all the times in debates when he indicated that his policy would be to "consult" with various people. I want to elect a President, not a General Manager.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. He's really pretty good on my most-important issues. With this exception: In the Values Voter debate, he was asked what should have been a softball question about the Mexico City policy, and he didn't know what it was. What's up with that? Too, I'm made nervous by his pot-shots about Romney's Mormon faith, and the earlier campaigning by some Huckabee supporters against Sen. Brownback that found fault with his Catholicism, and Huckabee's closeness with many openly anti-Catholic preachers. That combined with his poor record on fiscal policy and his lack of knowledge of foreign policy make me want to find someone better.
And Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Ron Paul is right on the abortion issue. He's the ultimate small-government guy. He has the record to prove that he's not just a crackpot after his career in Congress. Unlike Hunter, he's put together a real national campaign. In a season in which so many people say they want change, no one offers as much change as does Ron Paul. So why didn't I like him before? He wants to pull out of Iraq. Which leads to the question, can we do that? Can we do it well?
I've concluded that, as I've often been told, I cannot have a perfect candidate. I'd rather trust President Paul to pull out of Iraq well than trust President McCain to defend the traditional family and the rights of the unborn. I'd rather trust a man who won't go to war without a declaration of war from Congress than trust whomever a President Romney would "consult".
I'd rather trust Ron Paul with the presidency than anyone else.
I lived in Texas for 17 years. They have good people there. Ron Paul, before Congress, was an obstetrician; he's delivered over 4,000 babies, and never considered performing an abortion. He's not a lawyer, and he has clear principles.He's not a man for sound bites, but for explanations. I like that about him. It doesn't fit our national culture, but that's a fault of our culture, not of Dr. Paul. He's not tall and handsome, but he doesn't have "handlers" either. He's pro-life and pro-liberty.
(Art credit: Leah Tiscione)
There's a lot wrong with this country. America's faults, historically, have come from its failures to live up to its founding ideals and documents. Ron Paul's point of reference is the Constitution. Nobody's tried governing according to the Constitution for a long time. I say we should give that method a chance.
I am pleased to announce my endorsement of United States Representative Ron Paul of Texas for the office of President of the United States.
If you have questions, this video may answer some of them (H/T: Life of the Party).
Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Simplified - video powered by Metacafe
18 comments:
Besides, I just love the sound of that phrase, "President Paul"!
I can't help it.
Like you, I knew there would be no perfect candidate. So, last Summer I settled on Brownback as the strongest on Pro-Life. But from the start I had a lot I liked about Ron Paul. Pro-Life, proper understanding of the Constitution, etc.
So after Brownback dropped out I had a dilema. Ron Paul or Huckabee. As time went on, it grew clearer & clearer Ron Paul was the best choice & so I supported him in the Iowa Caucuses.
Hopefully more people will start to see that he is the best choice.
As for "President Paul" I can just imagine how you felt when we still had "Pope Paul"! :)
I've been pulling for Thompson for a while now, but I too am discouraged by the lack of support. I'm an old-school federalist at heart, and so I'm in a similar bind. Can Ron Paul win against the cadre of Democrats determined to buy the White House?
Jimbob, I have to believe that, given the choice between freedom and socialism, the majority of Americans will still choose freedom.
But the question I have to answer is not who will win, but who can I, in good conscience, vote for.
I've concluded that Ron Paul is most worthy of being entrusted with that office.
Paul isn;t perfect, but he has my support as well. I like the idea of traditional small-government conservatism, and I like his views on Iraq as well. Not being a lawyer is a big plus as well
Good analysis and my own thought processes mirror yours.
A couple of caveats.
We shouldn’t say that Rudy was thrice married since he did receive an annulment for his first marriage. I do think that his nomination would split the party and stop making it the part of life.
As for McCain he did support Arizona’s amendment to ban same-sex marriage, so to say he opposes defense of traditional marriage is not quite exact. He voted against the FMA so he must think this is a state rights issue, a position I think is silly when it comes to marriage. His position on ESCR since he web page says he is against cloning embryos so this would mean his position is the same as Romney;s in using frozen embryos from IVF. That said how can we believe he would pick a Supreme Court Justice when he put forth the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Fiengold and the good justices on the court would have been happy to throw out the whole thing instead of just parts. Gang of 14, Global warming, opposition to Anvar, immigration, and thousands of other pokes in the eyes of conservatives. Though unlike Rudy I could vote for him if nominated as a much lesser evil than either Hillary or Obama.
Your analysis of Mitt is good and he certainly hasn’t seen through what life begins at conception actually means. He is a question mark as being pro-life and with him being the Gov of a very liberal state you have to wonder when it comes to a Supreme Court nomination how strong of a judicial conservative he will put forth in probably what will remain a Democratic house and senate. He has no track record of really fighting for something. As for the consulting part there is some truth in what you say, but every president needs good advisers as to specifics. The president thought in his own mind has to have a general grasp of the direction to go in several fields without having to be an expert. I think Mitt would take more of the mantle of George W. Bush than Reagan.
Huckabee in many ways is such a disappointment. Here is somebody actually fully pro-life. But he doesn’t really have a grasp of things nationally and world wide. That he had never heard of the Mexico City policy was quite surprising. Of all the current candidates I find him to be the most dishonest in his spin of the past. If you listen to him it sounds like he has always held to the same opinion, yet his current policy decisions are on the extreme end of where he governed. His biggest problem is I don’t see how he could win the election with his Evangelical identity politics and not being able to put the conservative case forward in a manner that does not retire totally on scripture.
Ron Paul is a great pro-lifer and supporter of small government. But like many libertarian minded folks he is nutty on foreign policy. Not that our foreign policy has been all that great, but going back to our isolationist days only make problems grow bigger. We are a super power and we have responsibilities and anybody who does not understand that is hardly fit to be president. Have you read George Wiegel’s new book on Jihadism? If only Ron Paul could understand the ideas put forth into that book. I must say I am rather surprised by your Ron Paul endorsement since it is hard for me to support someone to run the country that couldn’t even run his newsletter without knowing what was going on. But considering the alternatives I can understand your support. I do wish so many nutters were not attached to him and they he had returned the money he got from Stormfront and through their site. His reasoning that it at least takes away their money for use is not very good in light of what was said in his own newsletter. There is just know way that he could explain this away in a General election with the Democrats being so good at race-baiting.
But ultimately Ron Paul is a Primary vote and is never going to receive the nomination. For the election we are going to be choosing from who will do the least damage.
I knew you would come around eventually. Welcome to the Revolution.
Yes. Welcome to the Revolution, Paul.
Jeff, he wasn't "running" the newsletter, though he was the publisher. He has admitted his responsibility in this area, and has repudiated the ideas put forth in those newsletters...again.
If his ideas on foreign policy are "nutty", then so are the founding fathers. And the responsibility we have as a "super power" is to protect our own country, which by the way, we are NOT doing right now. We leave the borders wide open and we send our men over to fight for democracy in Iraq while we go completely broke and in debt, further endangering the lives that we are responsible for protecting.
Even if Ron Paul is wrong on all of this, which he's not, I think Regular Guy Paul is right, I'd rather trust President Paul on Iraq than trust McCain on social issues. Maybe if we get our nation right again on social issues, God will have mercy on us, and permit no more grave harm to our nation.
Jeff's analysis of all the candidates is spot on, and makes me all the more depressed that this group is what we have to choose from.
The local Cleveland TV station interviewed a GOP voter this morning about the lack of a strong GOP field and his response was along the lines that it's so bad it almost makes you want to remove yourself from the process and just sit back and watch while the whole thing falls apart.
If his ideas on foreign policy are "nutty", then so are the founding fathers.
Oh please. The founding fathers were not isolationists. America at the time the Constitution was written was not a global superpower, so I am not exactly sure how we're supposed to claim that the founders and Ron Paul see eye to eye anyway. Ron Paul and many of his supporters have re-written American history to find isolationists under every corner. This is simply NOT an accurate reading of our history.
Back in the day when I had a vision of government that was similar to what Dr. Paul is espousing, I and others like me called that vision "Jeffersonian". (Of course, we were at the University of Virginia, so what else were we to call it?)
I wonder if Dr. Paul would consider himself a "Jeffersonian" in his view of government. If so, the early Jeffersonians from Jefferson himself to Madison, Monroe, etc. were hardly isolationist.
I think it's a stretch to claim that ALL of the Founders held the same views on foreign policy. In fact, differences over how interventionist our foreign policy should be was one of the major dividing lines between those who called themselves Federalists (Adams and Hamilton) and those who called themselves Republicans (Jefferson and Madison).
The founding fathers were not isolationists.
Neither is Ron Paul.
To me it looks like Dr. Paul would like to get back to what we used to call the Weinberger Doctrine, for anyone who remembers that, or Caspar Weinberger.
We can still have President Fred; two different ways, in fact.
1. Paul, you know that I have been disappointed in Fred's energy level; it almost seemed that Thompson was running for VP. Considering McCain's age, or Rudy's health, being VP could well lead to being promoted. McCain & Thompson have long been friends; that;s one of the reasons why Fred didn't go after him as forcefully as he did against the Huckster.
2. Bob Krumm is supporting Rudy; http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=1807 on the theory that if Giuliani wins Florida and Super Tuesday primaries don't produce a clear winner, then the GOP convention could easily become a REAL "Convention" instead of just ratifying an existing choice. Thompson is almost EVERYBODY's number two choice; a "brokered" convention could have much to like about Fred.
Either way, my "Fred08" lawn sign is going to stay up until after the California primaries.
Also; Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, notes: http://instapundit.com/archives2/014440.php
Ken, there is not going to be a brokered convention. There will be a clear nominee long before that.
And sorry as I am to say it, it will be Mitt Romney.
Since you're so sure.... you wouldn't happen to have the winning numbers for tonight's California State Lottery, would you?
:-)
Ken, if I had winning lottery numbers, I'd share my winnings with you and you wouldn't have to worry about playing the lottery.
But you might consider reviewing my predictions posts for 2007 and 2006 to see how good my track record is.
I see Duncan Hunter has endorsed Huckabee, also, if endorsements count for anything, my two-favorite and in my opinion the most principled pro-life, senators, Brownback and Coburn have endorsed McCain. There is much about Dr. Paul that I like and respect, unlike most I think he has a lot of good things to say aboout foreign policy, but for the time being I am torn between my heart saying Huckabee and my head saying McCain, the buzz that if McCain was the nominee he'd make Huckabee his running mate is getting louder and louder though.
Post a Comment