The Candidates

First, let me say that I agree with Ryan completely in one area that he mentioned in his last comment: it's a lot better to discuss this stuff in person over a beer than it is via electronic communication.

I'll also say, however, that it's really made me think hard about the issues, since putting a record out there of my opinion is a little more binding than making off-the-cuff remarks.

Now, onto the third in a (probably) 4 part series on the primaries, my look at the candidates. And while, yes, I am a Conservative to the core, that doesn't mean I can't look beyond the end of my nose. In fact, I came very close to supporting a Democrat in 2004.

So, let's get started, shall we? For the sake of brevity, I'll do skip candidates who have dropped out, or who need to drop out ASAP (I'm looking at you, Gravel)

Hillary Clinton (D)

Well, I can make this one short and sweet. She's not really done anything all that tangible, she's for a bigger government, and her biggest claim to fame (and biggest credential) is that she's Bill Clinton's wife. Well, in my limited political mindset, I supported Perot in 1992 and Dole in 1996. No support of Bill Clinton means absolutely no support of Hillary Clinton. I'd probably rank Hillary Clinton as my least desirable of all viable candidates.

John Edwards (D)

Let's see:

Wants: bigger government
Plays: the class warfare card
Is: A hypocrite
Was: An ambulance chasing lawyer who drove up costs for everyone
Has: No chance of me supporting him for anything but excommunication.

Rudy Guliani (R)

He's a very likable guy. I like the fact that he's willing to own up to past mistakes, something missing all too often from public officials.

I think he has strong leadership qualifications, and I think he has a good economic and tax plan. He struggles at times to have a good, definitive plan for illegal immigration, but at least he has something of a plan. He's got a good record as Mayor of NYC (tough on crime, job creation among the big plusses)

However, I don't see him bringing any improvement to foreign policy over the Bush Administration. And for my preference, I'd like to see some improvement there. Rudy, in my opinion, would only bring the status quo to foreign policy, and that's not exactly what I'm looking for.

Mike Huckabee (R)

Well ... beyond the point that I can't say "President Huckabee" with a straight face, here is my problem with Mike Huckabee: He's running as a Republican, but he's not really a Republican.

He's a guy with a history of tax and spend. He raises taxes and spends money. And, he gets billed as a Republican and/or Conservative for this ... why exactly? Is it because he only spends that tax money on the things Jesus would (allegedly) approve of?

Oh, yeah, and the guy already is promising up to four Constitutional amendments. That excites me. Or ... you know ... not really.

On the plus side, the thought of Vice President Colbert does excite me, so he has that going for him.

Dennis Kucinich (D)

lol

Voted against him in a reelection bid for Congress when I lived in Cleveland. Don't like what he did as mayor of Cleveland, don't like what he did in Congress, and I don't like what he stands for.

But, that cereal he endorses ... it's tasty. So again, at least he has something going for him.

John McCain (R)

Look. I want to get behind John McCain. I backed him in the primaries in 2000, the first time I could actually vote in them. The first vote I ever cast was cast for John McCain. I just don't like a lot of what he's done since then.

His stance on Guatanamo is not satisfactory to me. His stance on immigration is poor, at best. His stance on terror, while understandable given his personal history, is not one I think is good for the nation as a whole. His campaign reform isn't good, either. He and I completely disagree on global warming.

His economic platform is good, however. I like that he wants to cut spending, and that despite being in Washington for so long, he's never tried to get through a pork ear mark. I applaud him for resisting that temptation, and I truly believe he would work hard to balance the budget and bring spending reform to Washington.

Barack Obama (D)

This guy is an unknown to me on so many levels. I hear about how he wants to bring change, but I never hear how he wants to bring change. I hear about how he wants to solve problems, but all I hear are the problems. I don't hear any solutions. And, I think Greg Easterbrook (yes, TMQ, of ESPN.com) wrapped the problem with that up nicely:

Suppose God appeared in a glowing cloud and said, "You either may have indefinite continuation of existing social and economic trends or you may have change, but I make no promises about what type of change" -- which option would you select?

Good question, no? Something to think about when a candidate only promises change, and doesn't tell you exactly what kind of change he means.

Having said that, there are some positions that Obama has given us his stance on. Oil, energy, health care, and Iraq, to name a few. And while I applaud him for taking a firm stance, I have the following issue with his stance: it's not his own. It's taken, almost verbatim sometimes, from the official positions of influential ($$$) liberal special interest groups (moveon.org, ACLU, etc). That scares me. That tells me that there should be caution that Obama might not bring "change", as much as he'll bring the agenda of a few powerful organizations. And any candidate who does that should scare everyone on some level.

Now, I don't want to just bash Obama. He's got a lot of positives. He's got energy, leadership, charisma and charm flowing through him. He exudes confidence. He's able to excite people by his mere presence. This is something I want in a leader and especially in a President. I'd just prefer he use that for issues and directions I want taken.

Having said all that, if I had to pick a Democrat for the White House (gun to my head, vote for a Dem or you die situation), I'd pick Obama. But, really, that's like me picking a "winner" if asked the question "which one of your friends would you most like to go gay with?" Sure, I pick a "winner", but I'm not happy with the end result.

Ron Paul (R)

I'll be honest again: I started the primary season out as a Ron Paul supporter.

I like a lot of his core issues. Get back to basics in the Constitution. Limit the role of government. Withdraw troops from foreign lands where they aren't serving a national security interest. Fight inflation. Cut taxes. Limit government spending. Stimulate the economy the old-fashioned way.

However, Ron Paul fails, in my opinion, to mix common sense in with great backbones. His clinging to the horrible idea that the US is primarily responsible for the 9/11 attacks is sickening. His lack of denouncing papers, bearing his name, that carry racist, sexist, and other bigoted messages to the public, and choosing instead to simply wash his hands of them and deny involvement, shows a lack of accountability and action when needed.

I want to support Ron Paul for his ideals, but I can't, because he fails in common sense, understanding, reasoning, and comprehension. Too bad, really.

I found a quote on NRO about Ron Paul that I think sums him up and explains why I cannot support him: "Ron Paul starts with seeds of sensibility, and then they blossom into lunacy"

Mitt Romney (R)

Mitt Romney has very good positions and ideas on health care, taxes, budgeting, Roe v. Wade, Homeland Security, and foreign policy. To go through his website and look at what he stands for brings about a desire to vote for him, at least from me as a conservative.

He's been accused of "flip-flopping" on issues (such as abortion and gun rights), but when I saw his interview on "Meet the Press", I was convinced that wouldn't be an issue if Mitt became President. He gave a very sincere reason for changing his opinion on abortion (saying it's one thing to theorize about an issue, it's another to actually sit in the Governor's chair and act on an issue). And really, shouldn't we all be allowed to change our minds on issues as we mature and get more information?

To be honest, the gun rights issue (I'm a life long hunter ... but really, just varmints) upset me more than any perceived "flip-flop" on abortion. And that's because the entire saga, and every reference to it, reeks of pandering, desperate pandering, to the base on an issue, when he's viewing the issue in (in my opinion) an incorrect way.

And that brings me to a larger point.

Mitt doesn't always look comfortable and natural. It looks like he's trying too hard to sell himself and his ideas, and not just be authentic Mitt. And, being in sales, I understand the balance between remembering your talking points and what you want to get across and being natural and you and authentic. It's a struggle we've all had at least once in our lives. I just wish he would show more authentic sides of himself, rather than try to sell us on what he thinks we want.

Mitt, you're great as you are. You don't need the fake polish. You've got a great record in private sector and in government as a leader who can get results. Run on that. Not what opinion polls tell you to run on!

Fred Thompson (R)

The big question surrounding Fred: if elected, will Sam Waterson be in your cabinet?

Fred Thompson is almost the antithesis of Mitt Romney. He comes across as very genuine. He's a guy who exudes confidence and authenticity whenever you hear him speak or watch him in front of a crowd.

But he sucks at the political process and the political games. He's suffering from entering the race much later than the other major candidates, much the same way Wes Clark did in 2004. He's not getting much publicity outside of his own circles, which hurts him. It really casts doubt into the mind, asking the question "Is this guy electable?"

Having said that, he's outstanding on foreign policy, outstanding on taxes and budget, outstanding on states rights. He's a conservative's conservative, and he has a record in government work to back it up. Moreover, thanks to Law & Order, he's recognizable throughout the country. And that certainly helps his questionable electability.

But I'm not certain he can play the game well enough to win. He doesn't do great at fund raising or anything of that ilk. And that's going to hurt him. It keeps conservatives from jumping on his bandwagon, because they don't want the disappointment that comes with the "What if" candidate.

Mike Bloomberg (I)

I'm including Bloomberg because he's giving strong implications that he might run.

I don't get the appeal of the guy, to be honest.

He's great on education, but poor on guns. Very poor on immigration, and has no real foreign policy or foreign policy experience.

I guess the appeal of this guy is that he's been both a Republican and Democrat, and is now an independent. I suppose some could see how that might make him good in the middle ground and a uniter in Washington. I don't see it that way. He's very left-leaning on most important issues, and will draw almost no support from anyone on the right.

His best asset is his bank account and his track record in business. But other candidates already have that, with other stuff to mix in. Sure, it could be fun to see a third candidate step in and jumble the field, but I can't see a situation I'd like to be in where I select Mike Bloomberg come November.