Tag: national candidates

Categories
culture politics

Confusing Parties and Family Values

I have long thought it rather incongruous that the party of the “values voter” (the GOP) was offering all the candidates with horrendous personal histories related to family values while the party favored by those who seem intent on eliminating any traditional definition of family offered candidates with relatively clean personal lives in the family values department. I decided to do some research to see if this was a matter of gut-reaction, media coverage, or just plain reality.

Among the Republicans it has been fairly well covered that Giuliani was on his third marriage after a variety of extra-marital affairs, that Thompson was quite publicly a philanderer between his two marriages, and that Gingrich (who narrowly decided not to run) was having an affair that would end the second of his three marriages while he was prosecuting Bill Clinton for an affair that failed to end his marriage. Virtually nothing has been said about the extra-marital activities of McCain that ended his first marriage.

Among the Democrats I vaguely recalled that Biden was on his second marriage after his first wife died in a car crash. So a second marriage with a sterling personal history. I also remembered that Kucinich was married to a wife half his age – turns out this is his third marriage. to be fair to all the candidates I looked at those who I had no indication of having any reputation for familial instability and discovered that Dodd is in his second marriage. While Clinton seems to have a sound record personally on marriage there is always the specter of her husband to scare away any expectation of a scandal free term in the white house on those grounds.

This is not intended to malign any of the candidates – it was really a fact check against the gut reaction. Like most other people I believe each person has the ability to change their habits and lives but it was disturbing that so many of the Republican candidates had rocky marital histories while so few of the democrats did. It was also disturbing to see how much more was made of the personal failings of those Republican candidates when nothing was said of similar situations for democratic candidates (Dodd and Thompson have eerily similar marital histories but only Thompson’s history was ever mentioned that I can recall.)

If GOP voters really believe in family values it would be hard to tell based on many of the leaders that are coming forward for the party.

Categories
National politics

A Voters Guide

I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for me to offer a voters guide to Utah’s presidential primary next week. Here it is.

First and most importantly – go vote. Even if you have no particular interest in politics you should get into the habit of participating in this “government by the people.”

Second – if you are going to  vote you need to pick a single candidate because we don’t have instant runoff voting. For those who still need to pick a candidate – here are your four candidates and two dividing issues to help you choose. (If you don’t want to vote for one of these four you should have already made your choice.)

The two choice issues are party compatibility and change vs status quo.

If you prefer the Republican view your choices are Mitt Romney or John McCain. If you lean Democratic you may choose Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. If you want to see a change you can choose Mitt Romney or Barack Obama (not that the change of Mitt Romney is the same change as you would find with Barack Obama). If you like the status quo you can select John McCain or Hillary Clinton. So now, in alphabetical order, here are the individual candidates and what they offer.

Hillary Clinton – she would bring all the advantages of having a woman in power (I don’t see what advantages are related to one gender over the other, but that’s what she offers). Her baggage includes her husband who has demonstrated a willingness to insert himself into the public discussion and a penchant for breeding divisiveness (as if we didn’t have enough divisiveness already). Hillary not only represents the status quo, but she guarantees – by virtue of her name – that most of the country won’t leave the partisan rancor that we have seen for more than a decade.

John McCain – he brings the advantage of serving 26 years in federal office. He knows how our political system currently works. His baggage is that he has spent 26 years in Washington D.C. Chances are pretty good that he has friends there who are invested in keeping the current system.

Barack Obama –  he has the advantage of not serving 26 years in federal office. He also has an impressive ability to inspire people and look towards the future. His baggage is that “he doesn’t have enough experience.” He has been a U.S. Senator for only four years. I’m not sure why the senate is such a guaranteed training ground for a president other than it gets you close to the action to know how things work. It seems to me that if you can’t figure it out within four years I have no confidence that you can figure it out in 8 years, or 26 years either. By the way, I think that the way Barack Obama canceled his campaign appearance in deference to president Hinckley’s funeral and personally offered his condolences to President Monson was very dignified. Many candidates would have simply expected a smaller crowd or silently called of their event.

Mitt Romney – he has the advantage of a wide variety of experience with positions of authority and no excess of experience in government. His baggage is that some people don’t trust him, some people associate him with the current administration (based on party affiliation), and some people dislike him for both of the preceding reasons.

There you have it. Make your choice. I think it’s obvious that I favor change over the status quo. I hope you do too. It would be a nice change if we had high voter turnout on Tuesday.

Categories
National politics State

And Then There Were Two (Each)

The results of Florida’s primary have functionally whittled the Republican field to two candidates. no longer is there the possibility that Giuliani will suddenly jump back into the front runners circle. No matter what other candidates may hang around there are really only two candidates among the Republicans – Romney and McCain – who have a reasonable expectation of getting the nomination. Similarly, the Democrats buried any hopes of Edwards rising as a contender after his dismal third place finish in South Carolina leaving only two candidates – Obama and Clinton – with any legitimate shot at the nomination.

It’s time to start pushing for Obama here in Utah since there is no Republican contest in Utah’s primary.

Categories
National politics

The Pull of Youth

I can’t really explain why the following passage stuck in my mind from Frank Richs’ column in the New York Times yesterday. Something about it just caught my attention and has been hanging on in the background ever since. Speaking of the winners of the Iowa caucuses:

The two men are the youngest candidates in the entire field, the least angry and the least inclined to seek votes by saturation-bombing us with the post-9/11 arsenal of fear. They both radiate the kind of wit and joy (and, yes, hope) that can come only with self-confidence and a comfort in their own skins. They don’t run from Americans who are not in their club. Mr. Obama had no problem winning over a conclave of white Christian conservatives at Rick Warren’s megachurch in Orange County, Calif., even though he insisted on the necessity of condoms in fighting AIDS. Unlike the top-tier candidates in the G.O.P. presidential race, or the “compassionate conservative” president who refused for years to meet with the N.A.A.C.P., Mr. Huckabee showed up last fall for the PBS debate at the historically black Morgan State University and aced it.

The “they” who did not see the cultural power of these men, of course, includes not just the insular establishments of both their parties but the equally cloistered echo chamber of our political journalism’s status quo. It would take a whole column to list all the much-repeated Beltway story lines that collapsed on Thursday night.

One thing that struck me was the admission that the established leaders of the parties and the professionals of political journalism can’t grasp what is happening in this year’s primaries. The second thing was the comment that these are the two youngest candidates. I had known that Obama was the youngest candidate, but I had never really considered the age of Huckabee. Back before Huckabee was a top candidate I noticed in my study of the candidates that Mitt Romney was the youngest of the major Republican candidates and he was a couple of months older than Hillary who was the oldest of the major Democratic candidates. That was an interesting split between the two parties in my mind.

Looking into the ages now I find that Huckabee is two years younger than the next youngest candidate (John Edwards) and only 6 years older than Obama. I wonder if part of this is more than just the rhetoric of change, but the evidence that the electorate is ready to pass the reins of leadership over to a younger generation. If Huckabee goes on to get the Republican nomination there is only one viable Democrat left who could represent the Baby Boom generation in the general election – that would be Hillary Clinton (unless by some miracle Rill Richardson can leap from 4th place to 1st among the Democrats).

Categories
culture politics

Candidate Questions vs President Questions

Thanks to Scott’s post on Presidential Qualifications I really got thinking about the difference between what we should look for in a president and what we often do look for in a candidate. Scott quoted three questions that Dr. Lawrence Lindsey suggested we should be asking to choose a good president:

    • “Has the candidate faced a crisis or overcome a major setback in his or her life?”
    • “Has has the candidate had a variety of life experiences?”
    • “Can the candidate tell the difference between a foreign enemy and a political opponent?”

To those questions, Scott then listed the three questions that we seem to ask about the candidates that we choose to support:

    • Is this candidate most likely to win?
    • How closely do I agree with this candidate?
    • Do I like this candidate’s personality?

Now Scott leaves me asking myself, are these two sets of questions complimentary to each other, contradictory to each other, or independent of each other?

I tend to think that the two sets of questions are complimentary. The first set (for selecting a president) should be asked first because there is nothing to gain by choosing a candidate who can win if they can’t pass the test of whether they are likely to be a good president. I think that set of questions is what I was crudely trying to answer through my candidate endorsement series earlier last year. If we could ask those questions generally we might be better at retaining the good candidates who sometimes drop out early when they can’t capture our attention with the second set of questions. On the other hand, there is a lot of value to be had by applying the second set of questions to the available candidates after they have been passed through the sieve of the first question set.

Once the primaries are over, if your favored candidates are no longer in the race it can be useful to return to the first set of questions and see which of the remaining candidates (if any) qualify. (The only time the second set of questions should apply is when there are multiple candidates available that pass that first critical standard.)

Now I ask myself if my positions on the candidates would have been any different if I had followed this process more exactly for the 2008 field.

Categories
National politics

Ready to Vote

Votes will start to be counted this week. The Iowa caucuses take place on Thursday as a wide open presidential election promises to dominate the news coverage for another 10 months. I have already done individual endorsements of the candidates and an advance ranking of what candidates I liked best. Now, with actual votes on the line, here is my final position on the candidates I could vote for. In alphabetical order I could vote for:

    • Joe Biden
    • Mike Huckabee
    • Barack Obama
    • Ron Paul
    • Mitt Romney

The Republicans include a Small-Government Constitutionalist that the media does not understand, and hence does not cover (Ron Paul), a man who knows how to get things done (Mitt Romney), and a more articulate champion for “compassionate conservatism” than our current President (Mike Huckabee). The Democrats include a fresh face of optimism (Barack Obama) and a man who is everything that Hillary pretends to be – experienced and essentially moderate (Joe Biden).

Many people say this is a change election (I’ve heard that before but we’re still doing the same thing in Washington) and if your view is to change Washington then the order of candidates (from most change to least) would have to be:

    • Ron Paul
    • Barack Obama
    • Mitt Romney
    • Joe Biden
    • Mike Huckabee

Based on my positions (where change is not the only factor) I would support the candidates in this order (My support from 1-10):

    1. Ron Paul (10)
    2. Mitt Romney (7)
    3. Joe Biden (6 – I like his positions better than Obama)
    4. Barack Obama (6 – I like his tone and his chances in the primaries better than Biden)
    5. Mike Huckabee (4 – if you think our current domestic priorities are acceptable then Huckabee would be better able to sell them than Bush has been)

While everyone who doesn’t support Ron Paul will argue that he hasn’t got a chance, I argue that his real support is much broader than any other candidate (with the possible exception of Obama). The problem is that his supporters as a group may not be reliable about getting to the polls (it’s hard to say because they are such an unorthodox group politically). I think that if Ron Paul can place at least 3rd in Iowa behind Romney and Huckabee (I say third because the caucuses are more complex than a simple primary) and second (or possibly even 3rd) in New Hampshire behind Romney or McCain then the media will have to pay more attention to his showings in those states which will have surprised the media and the general public. This increased coverage will make those who might not have supported him before less apprehensive about voting for him and he will have a very real chance (unless Romney wins both of those states outright).

Obviously I want Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination but I would be extremely happy to see an Obama/Biden ticket in November. Then I could have a decent choice even if the Republicans choose an unacceptable candidate like Giuliani for the general election.

Categories
National politics

Ron Paul Running Mate

I have often wondered who Ron Paul would choose as a running mate. I got my answer from Phil Harris. Alan Keyes joined the race for the Republican nomination long after I stopped doing candidate endorsements, but when I looked at his positions I found someone who was ideologically very similar to Dr. Paul on most issues.

Dr. Keyes is light years behind Dr. Paul organizationally and financially, nor does he inspire the same fervor among his supporters, but he seems to bring a similar love and understanding of the Constitution. Another advantage would be that Dr. Keyes, being black, would quell the baseless fears of those who dislike the small financial support that Dr. Paul has received from members of some white-pride types of fringe groups. Dr. Paul would demonstrate that their prejudices are not connected to him.

I’m not saying that this would happen, only that I have finally seen someone who would seem like a good running mate for Dr. Paul.

Categories
National politics

GOP Meltdown

I have written previously about my views on social conservatives abandoning the party in 2008 if the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani. I have been interested in the various articles about why they would, or wouldn’t go through with that threat. Some of the people suggesting that this is a bluff, or a poor choice, show that they do not really understand the people who are set against Giuliani. I have read some columnists who think that this is just a childish stunt. Others believe that the social conservatives have been given short-shrift in the GOP coalition and are not surprised by their desire to flex their muscles.

I argued that the social conservatives needed to support a single candidate rather than just opposing a single candidate. It has been nice to see others who feel the same way. Another convincing suggestion for social conservatives is that they need to work harder at winning the hearts and minds of other factions of the GOP coalition.

Based on what I am hearing I would bet on one of four candidates getting the Republican nomination: Rudy Giuliani – if the social conservatives don’t coalesce around another candidate, Mitt Romney – if they are really afraid of Rudy, Mike Huckabee – if they just can’t bring themselves to back a Latter Day Saint, or Ron Paul – if his extremely committed and growing core of followers can break through to mainstream voters (meaning those who are more laid back about their politics and thus are less likely to go seeking a candidate who is not at the top of the MSM listing of candidates).

Because I don’t believe that social conservative leaders are bluffing about Giuliani, I predict that all of the other Republicans have a better shot in the general election that Rudy does.

Categories
politics

Candidate Compatibility

Overall Candidate ResultsI found the results of this candidate compatibility calculator interesting. The calculator consists of 23 issues that you rate your support as Yes/No/unsure and the importance of the issue as High/Medium/Low. I visited to find out what candidate my views supposedly corresponded with. I have been surprised by some calculators before. Aside from the top candidate I thought that the calculator did pretty well with me (My Candidate Matchup). I may agree generally with John Cox on the issues, but I don’t know that he is much more prepared than I am to be President (except that he’s over 35). I was disappointed to see that until I expanded the list of top candidates and found that Mike Huckabee has the same percentage of compatibility with my views followed by Ron Paul. Mitt Romney, John McCain and (surprisingly) Tom Tancredo were tied below that followed by Fred Thompson. I knew that the calculator was right to put Rudy Giuliani at the bottom among the Republicans on my list (below a Democrat no less).

When I saw the results I was surprised to see the aggregate results which show that 55% of respondents lined up with Republicans when the prevailing wisdom is that Democrats have the edge in the 2008 election. Complicating this surprise is the fact that the number one individual candidate with the for respondents overall was Mike Gravel – a Democrat. Perhaps one of the reasons for this interesting combination of results is that the scoring does not penalize candidates who oppose your position on issues of high importance to you – they are scored the same as candidates who take no position on the issues of high importance to you. Perhaps the high success for Mike Gravel is that he is undeclared on most issues where there is not much consensus on the issue. This would allow him to get points with every respondent who did not list the issue as being of high importance.

UPDATE: I used the calculator again and took a stance on some of the issues I had marked as unsure before. This time Ron Paul topped my list. More interestingly Rudy Giuliani was now significantly below two Democrats and tied with a third. (Is it any wonder that I won’t vote for him?)

Categories
National politics

Could Giuliani Split the GOP?

I found the idea interesting that Christian leaders threaten to abandon Republicans if Giuliani is the nominee. John Hinderaker at Power Line doesn’t think so. I can’t claim to have more information than John, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility. I know that I can’t vote for Giuliani though I can only speak for myself. (Whether I am at all representative of GOP voters at large is highly debatable.) I am not always a fan of James Dobson and for me the Giuliani issue is not a simple matter of his position on abortion. The fact is that I could name three candidates among the Democratic hopefuls this year who I could vote for over Giuliani.

When I consider candidates I essentially rate them on a personal scale – I don’t try to press my criteria on other people, but I imagine that some other people do a similar thing in deciding who to support. This places candidates on a scale ranking who I would be more likely to support out of any given set of candidates. On that scale there is a line which I have decided to call the Write-In Line. Candidates falling below that line can’t get my vote no matter who they are running against. (I considered calling it the Orrin Hatch Line since I think I could vote for Orrin if he were running against Giuliani – but he’s pretty well lost my vote otherwise.) If I am voting in a contest with no candidates above that line I write in a candidate who I could vote for. Who knows how many people there are like me who just could not vote for Giuliani.

If the goal of this group in raising the option of a GOP split is to keep Giuliani from getting the nomination then their best chance would be to go one step further and choose a candidate now that they could support – I have a short list if they’re interested. I would say that they have to back someone no later than the day after the Iowa caucuses if they want to have any impact in the nomination. If they are really like me and could not vote for Giuliani then I would say that the possibility of a split is real and a Giuliani nomination could change the face of American politics.