Two questions for anybody willing to answer them:
1) Who should I vote for in the Republican caucus (and why)?
2) Who would be your second choice (and why)?
For example, I know that cousin Ken will say Gov. Romney, because that's his favorite candidate. But I'm also curious who, other than Romney, he would support.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You want it, you got it, for better or for worse. You won’t get this kind of diatribe out of me when I go back to work, by the way.
1. Romney. As you know, I believe Romney is the best Republican candidate. I’ll talk more about that later.
2. McCain. I haven’t followed McCain very closely, nonetheless, he is easily my second choice. I trust he has broad foreign policy experience. Don’t know much more than that. The reason he is my second choice is because (1) I have bought into the media-driven perception that Thompson’s heart isn’t really in the election and he’s not going to win, and (2) there is no set of circumstances that would result in me voting for either Rudy Guliani or Mike Huckabee. Simple as that. If Romney becomes unavailable as an option when Nevada rolls around, I will officially become an “Anybody-But-Guiliani-Or-Huckabee” voter. Hence, I will vote for McCain in an attempt to keep Guiliani or Huckabee from winning.
Beware, this is lengthy.
Why not Guiliani?
My opposition to Guiliani is simple. The United States has never knowingly elected an adulterer. I want my children to be able to admire the President of the United States. The Presidency should be exemplary of the virtues that make the United States great. Infidelity is incongruous with those virtues. Guiliani’s adultery was open, notorious, and until campaign season, unapologetic. I recognize people make mistakes, and they can be forgiven for those mistakes. However, I will never knowingly elect an adulterer to the most esteemed political office in the nation. I have seen firsthand from personal experience the tremendous human toll adultery causes. Such people do not have my respect. Hence, Guiliani is out of the question (for the same reason, I would not support Newt Gingrich, even though I think he is smart as a whip). The fact that Guiliani is socially liberal makes it that much easier.
Why not Huckabee?
Despite Romney’s undeserved reputation as running a “negative” campaign and being “dishonest,” Huckabee—who daily touts his own integrity, virtue, and Christianity while castigating Romney’s—is more dishonest, more disingenuous, and in a far more sinister and subtle way, runs his own little “negative” campaign.
More importantly, Romney is a far more capable, organized, and accomplished leader. Stack Romney’s credentials and accomplishments against Huckabee, and Huckabee is generally found wanting. Every aspect of Romney’s life and professional career is free of scandal. With Huckabee, that is simply not the case. Overall, Romney is smarter, better, and more prepared.
In the past several weeks, Huckabee has been lambasting Romney’s character and honesty based on Romney’s ads. He has spent very little time explaining what is dishonest about Romney’s ads beyond: “He is taking my record out of context.” I submit what Romney states about Huckabee’s spending, position on illegals, foreign policy, and pardons in his ads are true. Maybe slightly misleading, but essentially true.
Furthermore, Huckabee castigated Romney for his ads against McCain. We recently had a discussion regarding Romney’s political advertisements—whether they were fair to McCain or not. Keep in mind that Romney did not attack McCain’s character or patriotism—quite the opposite—rather, he questioned McCain’s record. Huckabee’s says of Romney’s ads against McCain: "I just think to attack John McCain-who I just respect as a very decent human being and an honorable American hero — I just think he deserves more respect than that.” Why, then, does Huckabee do the same thing he criticizes Romney for doing?
Here is what Huckabee’s own campaign website says:
“I oppose and will never allow amnesty. I opposed the amnesty President Bush and Senator McCain tried to ram through Congress this summer, and opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all.”
Romney’s ads state Romney is against amnesty, and juxtaposes accurate facts regarding McCain’s record on immigration (which you criticized as implying that that McCain is for amnesty). Why is it OK for Huckabee to explicitly characterize McCain’s bill as amnesty? How can Huckabee feel justified to render personal character attacks against Romney (as opposed to Romney’s substantive criticism of opponents’ records) for Romney doing the same thing Huckabee himself is doing?
Huckabee’s hypocrisy was really made manifest yesterday at his holier-than-thou news conference, where he invoked the New Testament and extolled his Christianity, personal virtue, and magnanimity in refusing to aid his insanely misleading attack ad—and then proceeded to invite every member of the press to view, videotape, record, transcribe, ect. the ad, thus having the same effect as if he aired the ad, with less expense. What a schmuck.
He has repeatedly stated, and his attack ad echoes: "If a person will become president by being dishonest, just remember, if he becomes president, he likely will not be honest on the job," The content of his ad is as follows: “I’m Mike Huckabee, and I approve this message, because Iowans have a right to know the truth about Mitt Romney’s dishonest attacks on me and even an American hero, John McCain. Romney’s record? Over $700 million in new taxes. Left office with a deficit. No executions. Supported gun control. And Romney’s government mandated health plan provided a $50 co-pay for abortion. If a man is dishonest to obtain a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job. Iowans deserve better.”
There are several problems with this ad. Whatever criticisms of Romney’s ads you may have, Huckabee’s is as just as bad, or worse. For instance:
“No Executions”: Egregiously misleading. There’s a pretty obvious explanation why: Massachusetts does not have the death penalty. In fact, Romney assembled a panel of experts to try to reinstate capital punishment.
“Supported Gun Control”: It’s true. Mitt supported an assault weapons ban. I happen to think that’s a good idea. As a side note, last week, Huckabee was pheasant hunting with the press corps and fired a shot over the heads of the reporters when a pheasant was kicked up. Bad hunter safety. Just reinforces my impression that Huckabee is sloppy. I’d rather have Romney butter up to hunters by exaggerating his hunting experiences than Huckabee pulling another Dick Cheney.
$50 Abortion Co-Pay: Egregiously misleading. Huckabee’s people assert that Romney should have used his line-item veto on the provision from the health care place. Under Massachusetts law, however, Romney could not refuse to provide abortion coverage. While in office, Romney vetoed legislation that would have provided the “Morning After Pill” pill without a prescription. He promoted abstinence education in the classroom. He supported parental notification and opposed efforts to weaken parental involvement.
$700 Million in New Taxes: Misleading. Romney faced a $3 billion deficit and a fiscally liberal Massachusetts legislature when he entered office. It’s true that Romney raised fees such as court filing fees, professional regulatory fees, marriage licenses, gas-delibery fees, state-school tuition, and firearms licenses. He eliminated certain business tax loopholes. At the same time, he cut spending by $1.6 billion. It is true that because of the reduction in spending, some local governments increased local taxes, and the capital gains tax and certain business property taxes increased. But state income taxes did not increase and Romney pushed to keep broad-based taxes down. Romney continued to push for rolling pack the income tax from 5.3% to 5.0%.
Left Office With a Deficit: Massachusetts finished 2004 with a $700 million surplus and 2005 with a $500 million surplus. Romney replenished the state’s “rainy day” fund because of these surpluses. The legislature increased spending and wanted to borrow from the rainy day fund. Romney vetoed: "One of the primary responsibilities of government is keeping the books balanced," said Romney "The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we're looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before." Huckabee’s assertion is not true. It was the new governor, not Romney, who set the spending level that created the deficit. At the very least, if Huckabee is going to criticize Romney, he ought to be reminded that spending doubled while he was governor and his state’s debt obligation increased by $1 billion.
Despite these attacks, Huckabee brags in the press conference about how he is trying to change the level of discourse. How is his attack ad, conveniently viewed and videotaped by legions of press corp members, improving the level of discourse? At best, Huckabee is no better than Romney. For Huckabee to label Romney as “dishonest” and then do exactly the same them is hypocritical. To do it while praising himself for taking the high road and not selling his soul to obtain the world is downright Pharisaical.
Campaigning is advocacy. Much like the practice of law, a candidate presents himself in the light most favorable to his candidacy. He portrays his opponents in a less favorable light. He has a duty of candor, but he certainly doesn’t have to paint his opponent in the best light possible. If Huckabee wants to indirectly release an attack ad to the public (which is exactly what he did), that’s fine. But don’t pretend you are the magnanimous saint doing battle with the forces of evil when you are doing the exact same things as your purported foes.
Huckabee’s press-conference, however, is not an isolated incident. It is consistent with his behavior throughout the campaign of attacking his opponents while feigning the high-road:
Mike Huckabee famously told a newspaper writer several months ago that he really didn’t know much about” Mormons. He then slyly asked “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’ Isn’t is interesting that Huckabee’s inquiry touched on a stock-and-file anti-Mormon talking point? It is true that Mormons believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are separate persons, and that Heavenly Father is the spiritual Father of all, including you, me, Jesus Christ, and yes, Satan. Huckabee’s inquiry is insidious because it misleads those unfamiliar with Mormon beliefs into thinking that Mormons believe that Mary gave birth to both Satan and Jesus Christ—a patent falsehood.
Huckabee’s pretending that he is a naïve simpleton when it comes to Mormonism is pure bunk. Mike Huckabee was the keynote speaker at the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City. They picked Salt Lake City for a reason. Mormonism was a key topic. In fact, every conventioneer got lots of free stuff about why Mormon doctrine is screwy. Ministries went out to witness to the residents of Salt Lake City. Am I really supposed to believe that Huckabee walked away from that wondering “what is this Mormonism of which you speak?” Moreover, should I really believe that any Bible Studies major wasn’t exposed to Mormon doctrine through class, Sunday School, leisurely apologetic or anti-cult reading, or all of the above? I know better. Huckabee knew exactly what he was doing when he asked that question. It was not innocent—was grossly disingenuous. And Huckabee says Romney is the dishonest one?
A few weeks ago, Huckabee released his Christmas ad. A lit bookshelf—which, curiously, did not have any books—in the shape of cross was in the background. When reporters called Huckabee on the Christian symbolism, he denied it and threw out some cutesy, sarcastic remarks. I have no problems with crosses in commercials. But don’t lie, Mike.
Mike Huckabee is a hypocrite. He does not deserve my vote.
Furthermore, “Vote for me, I’m one of you. He’s not.” is essentially Huckabee’s campaign theme. He’s done the same “a vote for me is a vote for Christ” shtick for several months now. In addition to his Christmas ads and his “Christian Leader” ad, my favorite example was when he complained about some evangelical leaders not supporting him. He says, “If my own abandon me on the battlefield, it will have a chilling effect.” Imagine if Romney said the same thing: “If Mormons don’t support me, it will have a chilling effect on Mormonism”? Huckabee is essentially telling evangelicals, “vote for me because I’m one of you.” I can’t stand this aspect of Huckabee’s campaign.
Moreover, I believe Romney is far more competent than Huckabee; thus, the fact that so many people are supporting Huckabee really makes my head spin.
Huckabee often criticizes Romney’s privileged upbringing, implying that somehow makes him a more qualified candidate than Romney. Yet Romney succeeded on his own merits. Romney’s family wealth did not make him #1 in his class during his undergraduate studies. Romney’s family wealth did not put him in the top 5% of his class at Harvard business school or cum laude at Harvard Law School. Huckabee’s class-warfare schlop is as annoying and unproductive as John Edward’s “Two Americas” diatribe.
Moreover, Romney’s non-governmental background is impressive. For 24 years, he worked in one of the most complex business environments in the world. Not only was he competent, he was extraordinary. He created his own spin-off company which he made enormously profitable. He was asked to return and turn around the company he started with, which he did with great success. He turned around the flailing 2002 Olympics. Romney has tackled difficult problems in every venue, and, unlike so many political candidates, been enormously successful. This is a product of Romney’s intelligence and drive, not his upbringing. I know Huckabee was president of Arkansas Baptists and ran a Christian TV station for awhile, but did he do these things successfully? What improvements did he make? What value did he add? I don’t know.
Huckabee often complains that Romney has outspent him “20-1”. This is not a strength of Huckabee. It is a tremendous weakness. The main reason Romney has been able to so significantly outspend Huckabee is not Romney’s personal wealth, but his far-superior campaign organization. If Huckabee cannot run an effective campaign organization, why would I trust him to run the United States?
Huckabee continues to lead me to believe he is uninformed about foreign policy. He and Romney may have similar foreign affairs experience, but Romney is far more comfortable and far more prepared answering complicated questions about foreign policy. My evidence? I’ve listened to them both talk about it. Huckabee’s statements on Pakistan, Cuba, Iran, his Foreign Affairs article make Huckabee comes across as a lightweight in foreign policy.
Moreover, I’ve counted three people he has claimed as his foreign policy advisors who have said that they either had only briefly spoken with him or had never talked with him at all. Some of them went further to say that they thought his foreign policy positions were ill-informed. Huckabee exaggerates. I’m talking about Bolton, Allen, and Gaffney. Once again, Huckabee, who calls Romney “dishonest,” appears to be lying himself.
Huckabee is incredibly thin-skinned. He developed a reputation in Arkansas for taking criticism far too personally and for being very thin-skinned and vindictive against opponents. This shortcoming of his is becoming manifest in these final days of the primary. Romney criticizes his record, and Huckabee totally goes bezerk on Romney, including this impulsive news conference he threw together yesterday. I believe Huckabee lacks patience and discipline.
Finally, I just don’t take Huckabee seriously. Some of his campaign promises are simply unrealistic, especially when they lack specific plans to make them happen. For instance, he is a passage from his energy policy:
“The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term.”
His policy statement provides a bunch of mush on research and development and the evils of foreign oil.
I am a big fan of alternative fuel sources, but Huckabee’s promises is a pipe-dream, especially because I don’t see anything that would give me confidence that he’s the guy that could make it happen.
His website’s statement on the FAIR tax is similarly unrealistic:
I'd like you to join me at the best "Going Out of Business" sale I can imagine - one held by the Internal Revenue Service. Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly. But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment. All our hours filling out forms, all our payments for help with those forms, all our shopping bags filled with disorganized receipts, all our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.
Magic wand, eh? Another pipe dream.
Some people find Huckabee’s witty statements in the face of tough questions endearing. Not me. “I don’t have much foreign policy experience but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express” is cute. I don’t want cute in the White House. I want competence. Romney shows competence. Huckabee shows personality. When the going gets tough, Romney gets his organization together and gets to work. Huckabee cracks a joke or holds a sanctimonious press conferences.
Okay, I’m tired. Can you tell I’m annoyed with the Huckster right now ?
I could keep going on Huckabee, but I’ve been going at this for more than an hour, so I better call it quits.
Thanks for the discourse on Romney, Ken. I support him too.
I did think it was a bit of a stretch though to say we have never knowingly elected an adulterer. Have you forgotten Clinton? Personally, I don't think the American culture could survive another Clinton soap opera Whitehouse. We need a man with integrity and strong moral character, like Romney.
McCain seems like the best (R) candidate to me. He's got the most experience and integrity (as combined factors), and he's taken the pledge to appoint anti-Roe judges, so I say he's the man.
Not wanting to take an hour to respond, but wanting to hit a couple key points:
Misleading, but accurate statements concerning other candidates' records. I detest it from all candidates (it goes against, at least in part, the great quote from Greenspan I referenced in another post). But I think that all candidates are guilty of it, too. Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain, Obama, Clinton. It's a creature of the sound-byte world we are in, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Jesus and Satan as brothers. I'm glad you laid it out clearly, because trying to dance around delicate points is hard, and I don't like assuming I know what I've hearad third-hand to be true. I don't think Huckabee should have said it, and I think he agrees - as he apologized for it, and Romney (I believe) accepted said apology.
That said, I don't think it was intended in the way you portray. It might be a commnon "anti-Mormon talking point" - but it highlights, a very sharp contrast between the Mormon and evangelical idea of who Jesus is. For you, it may not be a shock, being raised with the belief - but for an evangelical unfamiliar with the Mormon faith to hear that, it's jaw-dropping. The contrast an evangelical hears is not to think that Mormons believe Satan was born of Mary as you assert. The contrast is that Jesus and Satan are in some sense equals or rivals, instead of Creator and creation - God, and fallen angel. It is an alien thought, and it is a difference often couched in simalar terms used with different meanings, as in the LDS church's official response to Huckabee's statement. It might be a talking point, but that's because it helps clarify the divergent views on the central question of "Who is Jesus?"
So, I don't think it was an attempt to lie about the Mormon faith. It was, I think, an attempt to distinguish Mormon and evangelical theology. And I don't think that has a place in the debate at hand - namely, who would be the best President. I grimmaced when I read that. While I think it's a valid debate, it's one of theology, not politics.
In a nearly final, unrelated note... I'm not sure I would describe Romney's "He's a great man, but..." ad concerning McCain as "quite the opposite" of attacking his character or patriotism. At best, he offered a qualified endorsement of the man.
All that said, while there are things about Huckabee I like, I'd like to see him talk substantially more about his thoughts and ideas, rather than criticising Romney. I think he's trying to sell himself as something akin to "a poor man's evangelical Romney." And that isn't a good enough reason to choose Huckabee over Romney.
For another time: how much does family wealth affect potential success - to what degree is Romney really a self-made man?
Greetings from Denver. Wish you were here:).
I've got to add a huge errata to add to my post. I want to correct it because what I wrote doesn't reflect what my actual thoughts. In my defense, I wrote it at 3:30am, so I was borderline crazy. My writing makes it sound I believe Huckabee was trying to mislead voters into believing that Mary gave birth to both Jesus and Satan. That was bad, unedited writing on my part.
I very much understand and agree that the doctrinal points you highlight are the real concern, and that the "talking point" highlights a significant "nature of God" issue. I'm confident that most evangelicals recognize the real issue, and I don't think it's particularly unfair for Christians to pose the question.
My intention was to throw in a minor aside that some less informed evangelicals may be led to believe that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers in the flesh. But I don't think that was Huckabee's intention or that most evangelicals would get it that wrong.
To be honest, I came up with that whole "I wonder if some people believe that Mormons think that Satan and Jesus are literal physical brothers" theory totally on my own, in the dark of the night. It's not something I've heard anywhere else. But, like I said, I think most evangelicals recognize it as you did.
So a little aside ended up becoming my main point in the post. My bad.
In any event, my issue with Huckabee, with respect to that issue, was the way he played the situation.
But you are correct that he apologized and Romney accepted his apology.
I'll write more later, but I wanted to clear that up.
Wish I was there, too - as nice as it is to be getting all this rain.
And I didn't think that theological diversion was the main point - just the wackiest one. But 3:30 am is always an interesting time to write something. I'm sure I've said some crazy things under similar conditions, so I can't really judge.
I did also mean to say - I don't think Huckabee is honestly claiming he doesn't know a thing about Mormonism (which seems, as you say, rather unlikely). My guess is that feigning ignorance is meant as more of a polite "That's not something I think we should be talking about..." which is why his comment seemd all the more inappropriate. Declining an opportunity to point out a sensitive but irrelevant disagreement is good and proper. Declining and then accepting the opportunity - that's the rub.
With respect to McCain, I question how he has more integrity than other candidates. He has run his fair share of "attack" ads in his day. He has changed a number of his positions. He has a tendancy to hide from his less conservative positions during election season. Moreover, he is hardly free from ethical infractions. Google "Keating" and "McCain". It seems to me that an easy way to be labeled as a candidate with "integrity" is to be a member of one party and then vote with the other party repeatedly. It's worked for McCain and Lieberman, as well as a couple of senators from the south whose names I cannot remember. It gives the appearance that you are not beholden to party interests. If I ever run for senator, that's what I'm doing.
I don't have a huge beef with McCain, but I fail to see how he has more "integrity" than other candidates.
With respect to experience, being senator since Goldwater gives his a lot of legislative experience, but executive branch experience? Private sector experience? Foreign policy experience, sure. And maybe his sheer volume of legislative experience prepares him for executive experience. But maybe not. I'm not sold that he has more "experience" than other candidates.
Post a Comment