Monday, 7 January 2008
Rating the Republican Presidential Candidates
Since we are moving into the early stages of the Republican Primary season, I thought I would put out my conservative ratings for each of the five major candidates. I'll give a brief synopsis of each candidate along with my rating for that candidate. Let's go through the list in alphabetical order.
Rudy Guiliani
Rudy is the "moderate" Republican in the race. His greatest strength is his executive experience and authority on national security. He has first hand experience with the tactics of our enemy and understands our role in today's world. His term as the mayor of the largest city in the United State gives him valuable experience in managing large organizations.
On fiscal matters he has descent conservative credentials. He understands that lower taxes are better for the economy, but I am not sure how good he would be when fighting the bloat of an ever expanding government.
What concerns me the most about Rudy is his social liberalism. On the social issues there is little difference between him and Obama. He is both pro-choice and anti-gun. I have deep concerns on who he nominated to the Supreme Court as president. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would have to rate him as a 2.
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee is the populist social conservative. I like his stances on issues relating to social conservatism. He is a staunch supporter of life and the second amendment. I have little doubt he would appoint good justices.
What concerns me about Huckabee is his disregard for fiscal conservatism. As governor he raised taxes and expanded the role of government. I don't believe his administration would do anything to lower taxes or reduce government. On top of that, his populist stances make him very isolationist.
His softness on crime as governor also gives pause. If he can't effectively punish criminals how would he stand up to our enemies around the world? His flip flopping on immigration doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies either.
While he has good executive experience his negatives far outweigh his positives. I have to rate him a 2 on my conservative scale.
John McCain
John McCain interestingly enough is more conservative than moderate. While he is betrayed in the media as a maverick moderate Republican, he really isn't that moderate. If you look at his voting record while in the senate, you would see one of the more conservative voting records in the senate. I think he is good on fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and national security.
What concerns me the most about McCain is his propensity to be a "maverick". Whether it is campaign finance, the gang of 14, or shamnesty, he has a tendency to roam off the reservation at times. Personally, I think it has to do with him wanting to be in the spotlight more than it does with him actually believing the issue he supports. It is this self aggrandizing that worries me. He seems to be more about himself than conservative principles. I'll rate him a 6.
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney is the Bill Clinton of the Republican party. I am not suggesting he is a philander like Bill, but that he has a tendency to tell people what they want to hear. For the primary, he has positioned himself as the "conservative" candidate in the race. Never mind the fact that he converted to conservatism two years ago when he decided he wanted to run for president.
That makes me believe that Mitt doesn't have any core principles guiding him. That he is willing to shift his positions as long as it helps him politically. His resume is impressive and he is saying all of the right things, but I just don't believe him. I'll rate him a 4.
Fred Thompson
That leaves us with Fred Thompson. Fred like McCain has a conservative voting record in the senate. The biggest fault I have with Fred's tenure in the sentate is his vote for campaign finance reform. But since then he has admitted the vote was a mistake. On the other hand, what has impressed me the most about Thompson is his campaign themes.
Instead of just talking about the issues he is talking about the first principles of conservatism. All of his policy decisions stances seem to flow from those principles. To be honest, it is a philosophy that needs to be embraced by Republicans if they want to return to prominence. For the last 8 years the Republican party has been adrift from those principles and need to return back to the ideals that made them the majority party under Reagan.
My concern is that his campaign isn't built for today's political culture. One where cult status and superficiality reign supreme. Don't believe it? How else do we get the meteoric rise of Sen. Obama. A man who's experience is a total of 4 years in the U.S. Senate. He has never managed anything large than his congressional staff. The only thing he has going for him is a dynamic speaking style. Yet he has an excellent chance of winning the Democratic primary and a 50/50 chance of winning the presidency.
Anyone who can articulate the core principles of conservatism as well as Thompson means he truly understands conservatism. I would have to score Thompson an 8 on my scale. He is clearly the most conservative candidate in the Republican primary, yet he has probably the worst chance of the five to win the nomination. That saddens me.
Rudy Guiliani
Rudy is the "moderate" Republican in the race. His greatest strength is his executive experience and authority on national security. He has first hand experience with the tactics of our enemy and understands our role in today's world. His term as the mayor of the largest city in the United State gives him valuable experience in managing large organizations.
On fiscal matters he has descent conservative credentials. He understands that lower taxes are better for the economy, but I am not sure how good he would be when fighting the bloat of an ever expanding government.
What concerns me the most about Rudy is his social liberalism. On the social issues there is little difference between him and Obama. He is both pro-choice and anti-gun. I have deep concerns on who he nominated to the Supreme Court as president. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would have to rate him as a 2.
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee is the populist social conservative. I like his stances on issues relating to social conservatism. He is a staunch supporter of life and the second amendment. I have little doubt he would appoint good justices.
What concerns me about Huckabee is his disregard for fiscal conservatism. As governor he raised taxes and expanded the role of government. I don't believe his administration would do anything to lower taxes or reduce government. On top of that, his populist stances make him very isolationist.
His softness on crime as governor also gives pause. If he can't effectively punish criminals how would he stand up to our enemies around the world? His flip flopping on immigration doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies either.
While he has good executive experience his negatives far outweigh his positives. I have to rate him a 2 on my conservative scale.
John McCain
John McCain interestingly enough is more conservative than moderate. While he is betrayed in the media as a maverick moderate Republican, he really isn't that moderate. If you look at his voting record while in the senate, you would see one of the more conservative voting records in the senate. I think he is good on fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and national security.
What concerns me the most about McCain is his propensity to be a "maverick". Whether it is campaign finance, the gang of 14, or shamnesty, he has a tendency to roam off the reservation at times. Personally, I think it has to do with him wanting to be in the spotlight more than it does with him actually believing the issue he supports. It is this self aggrandizing that worries me. He seems to be more about himself than conservative principles. I'll rate him a 6.
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney is the Bill Clinton of the Republican party. I am not suggesting he is a philander like Bill, but that he has a tendency to tell people what they want to hear. For the primary, he has positioned himself as the "conservative" candidate in the race. Never mind the fact that he converted to conservatism two years ago when he decided he wanted to run for president.
That makes me believe that Mitt doesn't have any core principles guiding him. That he is willing to shift his positions as long as it helps him politically. His resume is impressive and he is saying all of the right things, but I just don't believe him. I'll rate him a 4.
Fred Thompson
That leaves us with Fred Thompson. Fred like McCain has a conservative voting record in the senate. The biggest fault I have with Fred's tenure in the sentate is his vote for campaign finance reform. But since then he has admitted the vote was a mistake. On the other hand, what has impressed me the most about Thompson is his campaign themes.
Instead of just talking about the issues he is talking about the first principles of conservatism. All of his policy decisions stances seem to flow from those principles. To be honest, it is a philosophy that needs to be embraced by Republicans if they want to return to prominence. For the last 8 years the Republican party has been adrift from those principles and need to return back to the ideals that made them the majority party under Reagan.
My concern is that his campaign isn't built for today's political culture. One where cult status and superficiality reign supreme. Don't believe it? How else do we get the meteoric rise of Sen. Obama. A man who's experience is a total of 4 years in the U.S. Senate. He has never managed anything large than his congressional staff. The only thing he has going for him is a dynamic speaking style. Yet he has an excellent chance of winning the Democratic primary and a 50/50 chance of winning the presidency.
Anyone who can articulate the core principles of conservatism as well as Thompson means he truly understands conservatism. I would have to score Thompson an 8 on my scale. He is clearly the most conservative candidate in the Republican primary, yet he has probably the worst chance of the five to win the nomination. That saddens me.
Posted by at 10:45 PM in National Politics
