The races for the 2008 Presidential nominations have reached a critical mass. The choices are narrowing, and I can say without equivocation or qualification, I don’t like any of them.
I can stipulate that I was never considering any of the democrat candidates, so my comments about them will be few, other than to say that both of the two who remain are hard left leaning and will sponsor a socialist flavored agenda should they gain the White House. We should all be thankful that the “executive” is still only one of the three branches of government. And while the president does exert influence on the other two, there is still some semblance of “checks and balance” remaining in place.
I will say at the outset that Fred Thompson was the man that seemed most qualified to me, and had he remained in the race through March 4 (primary day in Texas) I would have voted for him. But I also will admit that even as a “fan”, the evidence of his drive and interest in the office was something less than inspiring. So, adios Fred.
I know that many people who describe themselves as evangelicals (as do I) have been pleased with Mike Huckabee. While he remains in the race, he is really NOT a contender and it would seem that his motive now is to be in position to be offered something big, by the ultimate victor. While I share his faith, politically he holds positions that are way too progressive and liberal for my liking. His approach to an open borders policy of immigration is completely unacceptable and some of the things he did while Governor of Arkansas, if indicative of his policy making acumen, are equally out of bounds to receive my vote.
Mitt Romney is an attractive candidate, rhetorically. He says all the right things. And there in lies the problem. Here is my brief biography of Mitt.
He pursued a highly successful professional career in the private sector. Hooray. Like it. That experience stands him alone among all candidates.
He went on to repair a corrupt and crumbling Olympics Organizing Committee in Salt Lake City and pulled off a successful Winter Games when that outcome was unlikely prior to his involvement. Good job! (The cynic in me says that he would not have been offered that position had he not been Mormon. But that is another topic.)
Mitt then moved back home to Massachusetts and ran for governor of the most liberal state (actually commonwealth) in the United States. In order to win, he must have been saying all the right things. At the time he ran for governor, he was pro-choice, pro-gay, supported the assault weapon bans, supported the Federal Employer non-discrimination act, and government mandated health insurance. I suspect that he was unelectable if he had not taken those positions in the state that routinely elects Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barney Frank, among others, as their officials in Washington.
Then Mitt decided to run for president. And once again, in the context of a political race, he is saying all the right things. I know that “flip-flopper” is a terribly derisive term that perhaps should be limited to democrats, if for no other reason than charity to the republicans. But just between you and me, the term fits Mitt like a mitten, oops, sorry, like a glove. He has reversed himself on every one of those leftist positions, so as to appear to be a full-fledged Reagan-style conservative. And he claims to have had genuine changes of heart on these matters. Call me cynical, but come on folks, he’s a politician for crying out loud!
So, my bottom line on Mitt is, I don’t have a clue who he really is. I hear very clearly what he is saying now. But all too recently he was saying just the opposite. Like literally in the last 3 or 4 years! How much do we trust a “conservative” who has only been conservative for 4 years? When will his next philosophical evolution occur and importantly, which direction will it take him?
John McCain…where to begin? Does anyone recall that at least for a news cycle, the tongues were wagging that John Kerry might select McCain as his running mate in 2004. Does anyone recall some early-on speculation that McCain might select Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2008? John McCain packages himself as a man who can bring the two opposing sides (democrat and republican) together. And he will point to his legislation as an example. No one can argue that he has collaborated with democrats to effect legislation. But none of it is good legislation. McCain claims, “he reaches across the aisle.” I would rephrase that to say “he steps across the aisle.” John McCain is, as they say, a RINO (republican in name only). John McCain has been wrong on so many occasions, through his opposition to conservative stands and support for liberal ones, that I don’t know how he can be trusted. In fact, I’ll just outright say he can’t be. He must be regarded as the one republican that they can count on in the democrat congressional caucuses. He is probably the one and only republican that the democrats might almost welcome as being the president. Why, if he were president, the democrats in congress could still have their way with legislation, and with John’s approval. The result being our continuing move as a country toward socialism will have appeared to have been bi-partisan.
What a stinky dilemma. Still, I must vote because I subscribe to the notion that you have no right to complain about who has been elected if you yourself did not participate by voting. So, vote I will. But I will (figuratively of course), have to hold my nose in order to do it.