Monday, March 12, 2007

Mitt, Rudy, Newt, and John

Truth be told, I haven't looked an awful lot at the field of nominees for either party looking to become the next President. I find politics somewhat interesting, but given the choice of a half hour listening to Sean Hannity in my car at lunch, or 30-minutes repose in the comfortable silence that is a Spring afternoon, Hannity loses - every time.

My cousin really likes Mitt Romney. Given my lack of a serious look at the field, I cannot look into subtle details, just juicy media ones that are hard to ignore.

I have a very, very hard time supporting a man who has been unfaithful to his wife. A philandering single man would get my vote with much less hesitation, because he at least does not violate a trust much more important than even the trust placed in the President - especially if he has done it repeatedly. If I can't trust you in your marriage, how can I trust you with the executive power of the United States of America? I like Newt's ideas by and large, but Trust is very important.

Mitt has pretty solid credentials as a socially conservative guy. He also has demonstrated experience as an executive on an impressive level, in the public and private sectors. But he was also a champion of the Massachusets health care bill that, as I understand it, has failed to meet it's promised "care for all" at the promised rate. He promised a pretty, though substantively weak, answer to a significant issue, and that does not inspire me as to how (or even IF) he will address the Social-Security and Medicare issues. Also, it is well-known that he is a Mormon. I am not. And in the scope of his ability to be President, I really don't care. Unless I had reason to suspect that his faith would lead him to make the faith of potential appointees a prior criteria, which I don't, I don't see how it has any bearing.

I'm not a huge fan of McCain (McCain-Feingold being an atrocious piece of fluff legislation), or Giuliani (see Gingrich and moral-fiber issues).

But of the four at the moment, I'd have to go with Mitt. He gets partial credit for at least trying to address the Massachusets health care issue, though I don't like how he did it, he at least made a real attempt. And the other guys have much larger strikes.

No comments: