The Race for the Presidency
Between Shayna's recent posts and an email from my sister, Bethany, I've done some thinking lately about how I'd rank the presidential candidates.
It'll come as no surprise to most people that Ron Paul is my favorite. He's the one candidate who really understands the Constitution and the proper limits of governmental authority. There was a fantastic moment in last night's debate where Paul (finally getting a word in edgewise) pointed out that, for all of the other candidate's talk about how they'd "manage the economy," the government's proper role is to make sure our currency has value and to get out of the way. He's the one Republican who was against the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and he's the one Republican who speaks sensibly about the fact that the terrorist threat is the result of our foreign policy, and we can't expect to end terrorism unless we are willing to change our policies. I disagree with Paul's thoughts on immigration, but on pretty much everything else he's a rockstar.
Among the other four candidates, Huckabee is my second choice. The guy is sharp, and a very effective communicator. I strongly oppose his stance on immigration and the "protection" of marriage, and I have massive reservations about some of his foreign policy stances, but he makes sense on health care, taxes, and I think he's likely to pick at least decent judges.
If one of those two isn't nominated, Obama would be my third choice. I don't think he has the faintest idea of how to pay for the massive social programs he's suggesting, and thus I don't think he has a very good grip on economic matters, but he's good on civil liberties issues, which are extremely important to me. Also extremely important is the fact that I think Obama is unlikely to embroil us in another foreign policy/military fiasco like Iraq.
A good step below these three (sorry, Shayna!) is John McCain. I respect his military service and I think he knows what's up, economically, but he pretty much sucks on civil liberties. Beyond that, he's a wild-card as far as foreign policy is concerned, and I could definitely see him continuing Bush's cowboy diplomacy.
And if the options are either Romney or Hillary? I'll write in Stephen Colbert. As I told Bethany, Romney is entirely too smarmy and oily. I don't think anyone could really predict what we would be getting with him as a president. And Hillary is the caboose of this train, mostly because I think people know precisely what they'd be getting with her as a president.
So that's my ranking of the candidates. Let me know what you folks are thinking!
posted by Pelagius @ 9:34 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I'm still holding out for Elway. Most come from behind wins ever..I think he's got a shot.
I'm a big Ron Paul fan, so I'm still rooting for him. Almost everything that he says just makes sense - and he doesn't politispeak like the other candidates. If not RP, then I'd go Mitt for economics (anyone is better than bomb-em McCain now that Giuliani is out - thank goodness) or Obama for someone new.
Clinton? Not so enthused. I think we need a new family name in the White House. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton just doesn't appeal to me.
Jeff Y.
I'm shocked all around. Your second choice is Huckabee? A man who said he'd like to align the Constitution with the Bible? Ummm . . . don't quite know what to say here. And McCain's biggest weakness is probably what he knows about the economy, which he'd be and has been the first to admit. Where I think his strength lies is with his class. We could use a president with class. Is this a reason to choose a president? I think so. Especally since he'll freely admit that water boarding is torture, which I'm not sure any of the Republicans have done. And even when the war was unpopular, he stuck to supporting it. Saying something to the effect of "I'd rather win the war than the presidency." I think this speaks volumes about his character. And being willing to compromise to get something done about immigration helps too. Although I'd really be happy with Hillary, Obama or McCain in office, so we obviously don't agree much on the race. :-)
Shayna -
A lot of my considerations rely on the fact that a President can't do much, domestically, without compliance of Congress and/or the Courts. As president, Huckabee would have ZERO ability to "align the Constitution with the Bible." Even his choice of judges has to be confirmed by the Senate, so there's a very effective check on his crazier impulses.
McCain may not have much personal knowledge about economic matters, but if you look at the positions he's staked out, he clearly has advisers who do. As I pointed out, my concerns about McCain have to with the fact that my biggest concerns about him (foreign policy, civil liberties) are areas where, as president, he would have fewer checks on his authority. In my mind, that's the biggest difference in my perspectives on McCain and Obama -- my opinion of Obama's strengths lie in the areas where he would have the most leeway as president, while his weaknesses would still be subject to more significant checks from the other branches of government.
And don't forget Ron Paul!! He's a Republican candidate, yet he always opposed the Iraq war, he opposed the Patriot Act, and he thinks the Constitution applies our handling of the "enemy combatants" who have been held for years at Guantanamo Bay. Furthermore, he absolutely refuses to vote for bills that overstep the proper Constitutional authority of Congress, meaning that he is frequently the ONLY "nay" vote. THAT is character.
Now, I do agree with you that, of the likely nominees, McCain is most likely to act in a bi-partisan fashion. I think that is a very strong selling point, especially given the abysmal level of political discourse for the past decade. So even though I have significant concerns about how he would handle the office of president, I also see much good that could come from his election.
Post a Comment
<< Home