Now for the Republicans....

+Would have posted this sooner but the college football bowl season has kept me preoccupied lately. I have decided to leave out Duncan Hunter because he has no chance of winning and does not interest me, but have included Alan Keyes because he has no chance of winning, but is interesting to me (in a train-wreck fashion).














Alan Keyes-




Keyes is the only current candidate I have actually seen in speak in person. During the 2000 primaries I wandered into an event where he was speaking at Western Michigan University. Since I had plenty of time between classes and was not hung over for a change, I figured I'd go listen to him. The thing I was struck by about him (other than the enormous gold watch he was wearing, seriously it was probably the nicest watch I've ever seen in person) was how he'd say 3 or 4 things that made sense and then springboard off into the deep end of absurdity. For example he'd go on for a few minutes about the tax code being a burden. Okay, I can buy that. But then he said "In some ways my slave ancestors had it better than we do, because at least someone else paid for their chains." I understand that's hyperbole, but it's not even good hyperbole. I'll take metaphoric "chains" over literal ones any day of the week. This pattern was pretty much repeated throughout the speech. When he stuck to economics related issues he did a lot better with me than when he got off into moral issues and the need to convert the entire country to fundamentalist Christianity. He also mentioned about 4,000 times that he had won all the debates. I'll give him this: he was a great debater. That is, until he completely went off the deep end over the past few years. I always wonder about these far right types and their obsession with homosexuality. Between the "selfish hedonists" comment and the way he has treated his daughter, his positions on most issues are overshadowed by his irrational hatred on this one.









Fred Thompson-




Yawn.




Seriously, has there ever been a bigger waste of time than Fred Thompson as a presidential candidate? All summer long there was all this hype surrounding the guy; people were claiming he'd be the front-runner as soon as he declared, he had the big announcement on Jay Leno, and has proceeded to go NOWHERE since. I wonder if he thought "Hey I'll go around saying 'aw shucks' and mentioning Ronald Reagan every other sentence, and people will vote for me because I was on Law and Order." This is a major thing that annoys me about republicans in general. This is a presidential campaign, not a Ronald Reagan impersonator contest. I mean Reagan was a master of shaping his image and perception, but Reagan could back it up with actual substance when it came to understanding of policies and the workings of government. And don't think you can fool me by pretending you don't really want the job. You called us, we didn't call you. And if you genuinely don't care about being president, we'd be more than happy to oblige you on that one. Maybe there is some substance to this guy but you'd never know from watching him on tv. He doesn't have any break-out issue. He seems to try not to say anything that will be controversial (translation: anything substantive or specific). If you look up his ideas on various issues, the phrase "Thompson did not reveal details of his _____ plan" will show up on virtually every one. When it comes to social issues I'd better never hear this guy come out and talk about defending "traditional marriage" If you have children older than your wife, I don't want to hear one word about "traditional marriage" come out of your mouth. I haven't heard him say this yet, but if I do my head will explode.









Ron Paul-




Do you remember the days when conservatism was about limited government and individual liberty? Neither do I, but I'm told by some that such a time actually existed. I would contend that if you were to resurrect Barry Goldwater and ask him what he thinks of the current crop of conservative candidates, he'd be confused because there is only one true conservative running: Ron Paul. I had never heard of Ron Paul until one of the early debates where he was excoriated for challenging the ridiculous claim that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists "hate freedom" I mean that's just some nice shit we like to tell ourselves. (It's kind of like when some one breaks up with you and you try to convince yourself that it was because of some good quality like being "too nice") He actually had the gall to claim that we have been pushing the Muslim world around for close to a century and that people may not like that. Can you imagine? To introduce the truth into a presidential debate? This guy must be insane. The phenomenon of the Ron Paul re(evol)ution has been the most interesting development of the campaign season so far. He has managed to compete with the big money candidates without the support of any political machinery. Hopefully this kind of decentralized movement will become the wave of the future, with candidates getting their strength from individual voters rather than party brass and the will of big-money lobbies. Ron Paul is one of (if not the ) only candidates on the republican side not to be seduced by the foreign policy madness of the so-called neoconservatives. He voted against the Iraq war, against the Patriot act, and most of the other constitutional violations of the Bush regime. Ultimately Ron Paul will probably make noise in some early primaries, but ultimately has no chance at the nomination. I blame this on the fact that the GOP has come completely off its moorings. The new definition of conservatism involves unending foreign entanglements, unlimited executive power, religious fundamentalism, fiscal irresponsibility, and corruption.









Rudy "Did I Mention 9/11?" Giuliani-




Did you know he was mayor of New York City during 9/11? If that doesn't qualify you to be president what does? (besides foreign policy experience, legislative experience, etc.) I think Rudy's 3 major advantages are: name recognition, the fact that he has successfully cast himself as the candidate that can beat Hillary (I'm not sure if he can), and the fact that he has few ties to the religious right. The major drawbacks for Rudy are allegations of corruption as mayor of NYC, endorsement of continuing the foreign policy blunders of the neo-cons, and the fact that he has few ties to the religious right. If running against Clinton, the religious right will back him enthusiastically in the general election, but may not rally as strongly if the opponent is Edwards or Obama. I think Rudy understands the difference between pushing your ideology and actually governing effectively (which is lost on the current administration). I like the fact that Rudy doesn't believe the government has any business in peoples' bedrooms. The fact that he is a card-carrying ass-hole would help him in some ways, when dealing with the Vladimir Putins and Hu Jintaos of the world.(much like it was when he was prosecuting mobsters) He also has an advantage that he went out on top as mayor in terms of popularity, and didn't have a chance to ruin his momentum the way Bush did.The main problem I have personally with Giuliani is his ties to Norman Podhoretz and many of the other "experts" that sold us the Iraq war, and are currently trying to produce a sequel in Iran. His support for torture, domestic surveillance, and certain other constitutional violations of the Bush presidency are deal-breakers to me.









Mitt Romney-



I thought about just copy and pasting the section on Edwards and changing the name to Romney for this one. He is one of the few candidates I can safely say I wouldn't vote for against anyone this side of Kruschev. I can't really criticize his stand on many issues because he WON'T TAKE ONE! Is he pro-life or pro-choice? pro or anti gun control? Does he favor the Bush tax cuts? Who the hell knows? Those are just a few issues he's managed to come out on both sides of. This is why I couldn't help but laugh Sunday when I read that he accused Huckabee of not being an authentic conservative. When has Mitt Romney been an "authentic" anything? If your going to smear another candidate, at least have the common sense not to smear them with remarks that could just as easily apply to you. The speech he gave about his Mormon faith also seemed to backfire. I think he took something that was a marginal issue and put it front and center. After that speech you rarely hear his name mentioned without the word "Mormon" attached. (I've rarely heard Harry Reid's Mormonism mentioned as an issue.) To me religion is not a major sticking point, especially with a candidate I already have this many reasons not to vote for. On a final note, you'll sleep easier tonight knowing that his five sons are "serving their country" by working on his campaign. (Yes he actually said that. He apologized later, but I give no credence to most apologies from any politician) After a statement like that he should run 2 campaigns,1 for him and 1 for his balls, which must be larger than anything you'll find in the produce aisle of your local grocery store.











Mike Huckabee-



After winning Iowa, I'm interested to see if Huckabee can maintain his momentum. I find him to be one of the more interesting candidates in the field right now. As a former baptist minister, rock and roll guitarist, loser of over 100 pounds, and Jim Neighbors lookalike (seriously the resemblance is eerie), out of left field front-runner and all around nice-guy Huckabee makes for interesting television. I think Huckabee has an uphill struggle in many of the upcoming primaries because he represents a threat to the beltway machine. He is also the candidate who represents the biggest threat to the leadership of the religious right (the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world). That might seem counter-intuitive, but if Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney want a piece of the evangelical vote they have to kiss major ass with these types to get them to go to their pulpits and shamelessly plug, the way they did for W. Huckabee, if so inclined, can tell these guys what to go do with themselves because he doesn't need to cozy up to whackos to get the "values voters" (whatever the hell that term means). He may still cozy up the theocrats, but it won't be out of necessity. This allows him to break from the religious right on any issue he wants (as long as it doesn't involve bedrooms or uteruses). For example, if Hillary Clinton as president proposed repealing the "family friendly" Bush tax-cuts these folks will see it as some kind of "secular humanist agenda" that will result in a "one world government" ruled by the "anti-christ". They'd have a hard time selling this line about a Southern Baptist minister. The Washington lobbyists also can't be real happy about pumping money into a bunch of the best candidates money can buy for years, only to have some governor of Arkansas who doesn't owe them a damn thing come waltzing into THEIR Oval Office can they? I worry about this guy when it comes to foreign policy, specifically I'm afraid Vladimir (I call him Vladimir) would steamroll this guy in most serious negotiations. I like the fact that Huckabee isn't clamoring for a disastrous war with Iran which seemed to be the next big thing within the administration up until very recently and has been one of the more vocal critics in the GOP field of Bush foreign policies. As governor of Arkansas he presided over large increases in government spending, (which I don't mind in and of itself provided you can pay for it with increased revenue) which may help give him some of his populist appeal. Which brings us to......







John McCain-


Let's see: legislative experience-check, foreign policy experience-check, actual service in war- double check. How did this guy make it onto the stage? After spending 7 years trying to be more of an establishment candidate and the "heir-apparent" to Bush, I hope the old McCain who talked straight and didn't care about the consequences is back. I voted for McCain in the Michigan primary in 2000 and may wind up doing so again. I like the fact that McCain has a long history of promoting policies that promote fiscal responsibility (ie Gramm-Rudman back in the 80's) rather than the "faith based" less taxes + more spending madness of the Bush administration. McCain is the only republican (other than Ron Paul) who does anything for me at all on the torture issue. If you had told me in 2000 that there would be a "torture issue" in the '08 campaign, I would have thrown up into the nearest trash can and then packed my bags for Canada. (Don't miss my point here: I believe there are plenty of people in this world who deserve to be tortured. I believe rapists deserve to be drawn and quartered. That does not mean I endorse actually doing so as a matter of US policy.) Our current strategy always reminds me of what Nietzche wrote over a hundred years ago that seems to be lost on those currently running our country:



"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."



This was echoed in McCain's best statement on the subject that it's not about who they are, its about who we are. The fact that this may be the tipping point for me on whether to vote for someone sickens me. I disagree with the Bush-like positions McCain has taken on the issues of executive power and surveillance of American citizens. The constitution tends to be something of a sticking point with me. I also think McCain is too hawkish for me. I think his views about staying in Iraq for 50 or 60 years as well as statements about Iran are troubling to say the least. This is not as big an issue to me as the constitutional issues. I could conceivably vote for someone I disagree with about the Iraq war. This is especially true of McCain for a couple of reasons. As someone who has seen and felt the horrors of war first-hand I have the (perhaps naive) belief that he will take a much more thoughtful approach to it than the current group of armchair warriors in the White House who actually disdain logic and forethought. (I mean does anyone honestly know the long-term political strategy over there? The answer is no, because there isn't one.) Another factor that leads me to believe this is that John McCain is the only candidate I know of who has a son currently serving in Iraq (with the USMC), so I'd like to think those two factors would prevent him from ever seeing war as a "product" to be sold to the nation on false pretenses. McCain's support for the president's domestic spying program might ultimately be the thing that forces me to pull the lever for Ron Paul. McCain to me is the clearly the republicans best chance at winning the White House. No one else on that side of the aisle can take down Obama.