Posted on 10/04/2005 12:02:05 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
Before I get into examining more presidential candidates, I have to respond for some of the criticism of eliminating 7 oft-mentioned candidates from consideration in the first column.
First of all, if you're just looking for a winning race horse that you can slap a Republican label on and say that you picked the winner, then you can stop reading. This article is for people who want to elect a candidate who will make our country better and stronger, not just keep a party in power. I believe that Republicans can be forthright and honest with the American people and still win.
Now, there's certainly a place for discussing electability, but there are several factors one must consider in that analysis, including the fact that the experts are often wrong and the amateurs are wrong even more often. To choose a candidate based on electability is to choose someone based on people reading tea leaves.
In addition, when choosing candidates who stand in opposition to coalitions that are already ticked off at our party such as Budget Hawks and Immigration reformers, the whole winning equation goes to pot, if part of the coalition stays home or goes third party.
Some have said that national security wasn't given big enough consideration in the issues I discussed. Indeed, the argument for several candidates rests on the fact that we need a strong leader during the war on terror. I'd ask our friends to start naming Republican potential candidates who can't lead our nation and lack the ability to fight the War on Terror. Who are you going to accuse of a lack of patriotism, courage, and determination? I find no one. If most of our candidates are strong on the War on Terror, that's not going to help us narrow down our list and choose a candidate, so therefore we go to other factors.
A related argument for the candidacy of twice divorced pro-partial birth abortion former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is that in the aftermath of the Bush Administration response to Hurricane Katrina, America needs leadership. What I find so fascinating about this argument is that it never occurs to them to support Governor Haley Barbour (R-Ms.) who showed great leadership in the actual hurricane zone.
Easy Elimination
There are a number of candidates that many people mention in conjunction with the race that are fairly easy to dismiss, because they've disclaimed interest.
Most notable is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who back in March said, "I do not intend to run for — no. I will not run for president of the United States. How is that? I don't know how many ways to say "no" in this town. I really don't." Apparently, not enough ways for the people who keep bringing up her name in every discussion of Presidential candidates.
Also not running is Governor Jeb Bush (R-Fl.), Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), Governor Bill Owens (R-Co.), Governor Mark Sanford (R-Sc.) or Vice-President Dick Cheney. To bring any of these names shows stubbornness and/or just plain ignorance.
The Next Tier of Candidates
Governor Mitt Romney (R-Ma.) has led a valiant fight against gay marriage in Massachusetts. In addition, he's come forward with innovative ideas on health care, while balancing the state's budget and rooting out corruption and abuse in Massachusetts government.
However, I do have two serious concerns about Governor Romney (R-Ma.) To begin with Governor Romney's views on abortion and gay rights have evolved radically from previous campaigns. In 1994 he said, "regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal." Now, he believes abortion should illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
His views on gay rights have also evolved in recent years as well. As late as 2002, Romney was participating in the Gay Rights' activist "Gay Pride days." He also favored civil unions before changing his mind.
Now, while it may just be being from Massachusetts that makes Romney flip flop so much, I'm concerned about a Presidential candidate whose core values fluctuate so radically as he prepares to run for President.
In addition, Romney concerns me in regards to electability. There is talk that he will not seek re-election as Governor of Massachusetts to focus on the '08 run. This should set off red flags. In the 2004 election despite pouring millions into campaigning for Republicans, the GOP lost 3 seats in the state legislature. In addition, according to the latest survey, Romney's approval rating stands at 51%. When looking at President Bush's gubernatorial record, we could see how he strengthened Republicans in Texas, on his way to winning a record re-election in 1998. If he leaves the Bay State, Romney will in effect be admitting that he can't keep his job with his moves to the right.
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne.) is disliked by many Republicans. I, however, would not describe Hagel as a "RINO." Hagel was not part of the gang of 14 that killed the Nuclear option. He has a strong pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun voting record. He's been an opponent of government waste and opposed the huge Medicare prescription drug benefit. Hagel, unfortunately has spoken out of turn too many times on the Iraq War and has been seen by many as a grandstander in the style of John McCain. Unfortunately, I must concur. We've invested too much in Iraq to send an unclear message in nominating Hagel.
Finally, Former Governor and HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson (R-Wi.) is speculating about a presidential bid. I think Thompson was a great governor in the '90s, what he did with education and welfare in Wisconsin was phenomenal.
I'm somewhat concerned by the support he showed for stem cell research in Wisconsin. However, an even bigger concern is that Thompson missed his best chance. In 1996 or 2000, he would have been a wonderful presidential candidate, as the governor a Blue State that hasn't voted for a GOP presidential candidate since Reagan. However, by '08, it'll have been 10 years since he's been elected to anything and his glory days from the mid-90s will be long forgotten and I just can't see him as a serious force in this race.
This piece gone quite a bit longer than I normally like to. I'll examine several more potential candidates in my next article.
Keep whittling it down till you get to Mike Pence.
You've already listed the people you don't want considered, so I'll just skip that.
I want bold. I want someone who is willing to articulate, boldly, the positions I hold dear. I don't want someone who is afraid to admit he's a Republican.
You can forget Frist, for example, and you can forget Hagel. If Romney wants to be considered, he'd better try a little bit of "bold".
Ping as promised.
What are your views on George Allen?
And all I have to say beyond that, is Please, PLEASE, not Romney! He has advocated "Boston Gay Youth Days", has allowed homosexual indoctrination in the schools, by doing nothing about it. And he has appointed and supported openly gay, and activists for gay legislation, to the courts here, and in elections.
He could have done a lot to stop the courts illegal imposition of same sex marriage, yet he didn't.
Lastly, we had several very conservative folks who ran for state legislature, and they did not get enough support (none from Romney) to stay in the races, or to win.
How many times has Hillary said she's definitely runnning? Yet we know she is.
We know Sanford has been out and about with McCain. I'd swallow a McCain/Sanford ticket. Afterall, McCain's old ain't he?? ;) *nudge nudge*
I don't know anything about Pence. WHo is he? Has he said he would run?
I second that. It's why I like Pence and Sanford. Shoot! Give us THAT ticket!! *whoop whoop*
Calling Gipper08 ;)
Maybe stubbornness. Maybe I'm letting people know the kind of person I'm looking for. I know they've disclaimed interest, but for some its way premature to be talking openly, it would detract and distract from their current duties.
And for others they've already gone farther in life than they ever expected, and find it difficult to imagine themselves president. But when the door opens, in the end, you look up and go through.
I quite frankly like Rice, Cheney, and J Bush. None of them are perfect and all of them have disclaimed interest. But thats who I like. Most of the others out there have yet to define themselves.
I'll let you take this one.
I like Sanford. He seems solid on fiscal issues and palatable on social issues. However, I'm less interested in him than I was. Seems his House record was spotty.
That said if he ran, I'd support him.
I want bold. I want someone who is willing to articulate, boldly, the positions I hold dear. I don't want someone who is afraid to admit he's a Republican.
---
I totally agree. I am so sick of all these pansy-ass Republicans. Why can't we get someone like Ann Coulter who enjoys getting a rise out of the liberals? I want someone who is not afraid to tell the Democrats to go pound sand.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318666/posts
ANSWER: I’ve totally missed out on this conversation. You don’t hear me talking about it. All this barroom talk, meanwhile, I’m playing with the kids. As I’ve said before, this stuff is flattering, but it (running for president) is the last thing in the world on my mind. It’s not even on my radar screen.
He didn't say no!
I think it would be very interesting to pit a woman against Hitlery if she makes it out of the primaries. How about Kay Baily?
That right there demonstrates the basic cluelessness of this author. So basically MOUTHING the proper slogans while doing NOTHING to actually enact laws makes Hagel marginally acceptable???? Sorry WORDS are not DEEDS. Hagel is INDEED RINO as anyone who actually PAYS ATTENTION should know. Just because he mouths the slogans this author wants to hear should NOT make him acceptable to if this author was really paying attention to what goes on in Washington.
Might wanna read this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1382061/posts
Damn. LOL
"I want bold. I want someone who is willing to articulate, boldly, the positions I hold dear"
That is Mike Pence!
I didn't look at his phrases, I looked at his voting record from the NRA, from the National Taxpayers Union, from the American Conservative Union. I was quite surprised by how conservative Senator Hagel is on a lot of issues. Like I said, I'm not endorsing him though. He's just not as bad as some people say.
Actions speak louder then words. Too many of you "Movement Conservatives" are too eager to be seduced by those who mouth the slogans you want to hear. Don't really care what a Politician SAYS. I am more interested in watching what they DO. In Hagel's case he has DONE nothing.
Same is true for McCain.
McCain has been a political enemy of George Bush, no doubt about it.
And he's a grandstander.
And his campaign finance reform was not very good.
But the first two things are purely intramural party politics. SO WHAT if Bush and McCain don't like each other?
Campaign finance reform is McCain's mistake.
But look at everything else. He's a solid conservative on abortion, on the war, on just about everything.
Doesn't mean he's the best candidate (although, actually, if none of the folks on the "Won't run list" run, McCain probably IS the best candidate) but he's certainly conservative, he certainly will not screw up the war, certainly won't sell out on abortion, can't be worse than Bush on immigration, and is likely to bring in a lot of centrists even though he's quite conservative in voting record.
Also, he's old. His running mate will get the shot to step up in 2012.
John McCain supports stem cell research, spearheaded the effort to pass the abominable campaign finance reform act, and also is soft on immigration. To be a little more long, McCain has been going more liberal over time. His ACU rating was around 72% last year. He voted against protecting gun manufactures from liability lawsuits. This is a huge issue because the lawsuits are frivolous and an attempt to use the courts to attack the right to bear arms. You can have all the right to bear arms you but if you can't buy a gun because all the manufactures have been driven out of business. He got a 50% rating from the NRA.
As for immigration, he's introduced an amnesty proposal. In general, McCain has so many problems with so much of the Conservative constituency that its a non-starter with me.
Based on his voting record which is quite different from his words, I believe Hagel is fairly conservative. Voting record is actions.
Based on his voting record, Hagel is a conservative. Every year since he joined a Congress, he's received either an A or B+ from National Taxpayers Union. He's received an "A" from the NRA, and even a Gentleman's "C" from Gun Owners of America. (A tough feat indeed, only 10 Senators scored better.)
Hagel has an 87% career ACU rating and a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition. Is he my choice for President? No. But is he a Conservative? You bet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.