Skip to comments.Picking the President, Part One
Posted on 09/27/2005 12:04:34 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
As I've written about the necessity of being involved in choosing a President, and putting yourself in a position to make a difference, it's important now to examine the qualities we should look for in a President.
The character of a person who will be the President of the United States cannot be underestimated. The President is a role model for American youth, whether we like it or not. Also, as we learned from the Clinton administration, the character of the President can become a joke that distracts from our nation's business and detracts from our country's character.
We don't just need a president who looks good in public, but a President whose private character is marked by moral probity. To believe someone will be faithful to serve his country and his duty to the Constitution when he's been unfaithful to his family repeatedly or dishonest in his financial dealings is folly.
This is not to say that a President must have lived a spotless life. If men were angels, James Madison told us, there would be no need for government. It is reasonable, however to expect that in recent years, the man has been faithful to his family, honest in his personal dealings, and been an example of integrity. I honestly don't care if in college, he did a few drugs, or if something happened 20 years back. What I care about is who the candidate is today.
I don't particularly care about John McCain's Divorce almost thirty years ago. However, I'm concerned by Rudolph Giuliani's divorce and his decision to parade around his mistress in the year 2000 while in his Senate campaign advocating for the display of the Ten Commandments. This was Rudy's second marriage, the first one ended when he figured out after 14 years of marriage that he was married to his second cousin and got an annulment from the Catholic Church.
Newt Gingrich's record of personal conduct is even more deplorable. He ended an 18 year marriage and let his then-wife know about the divorce as she was recovering from cancer surgery back in the '80s. In the '90s, he divorced his second wife after she claimed to have told him that she had a neurological order that could lead to MS. He then married a third wife who was more than 20 years his junior.
Remembering Bill Clinton's dishonor, I can't in good conscience support either of these men to be President of the United States.
Strong Leader for the War on Terror
When I look at the War on terrorism, it becomes apparent that we need someone who is up to the task of leading our country as we continue to deal with terror around the world. I don't necessarily feel that a wealth of foreign policy experience is necessary to this task. Under President Bush, we've had great success capturing Al Qaeda leaders and rooting out terrorists. I don't think extra foreign policy experience would have changed that.
What is was required is strong leadership and courage to stand up for American values with a strong understanding of the issues facing us. I believe our party as a whole has that understanding and I can think of no candidate who doesn't.
Republican party leaders rail against single issue voters. If I list about five issues a candidate's wrong on, I'm still a single issue voter for not supporting the candidate. The confusion comes from the fact that the people making these arguments are "no issue voters," they'll back any Republican no matter how far left.
The fact that the Republican Party is a coalition of social conservative, economic conservatives, gun rights supporters, property rights activists, and immigration reformers. If you fail to have a candidate who satisfies the entire coalition, who moves their agenda forward in some tangible way, you risk losing the strength of the coalition. Republicans are strongest when we are united behind a candidate who shares our dreams and values. Whoever leads the Republican party must unite all Conservatives. So, in choosing a candidate we should be single issue voters for all of our constituencies.
Rudy Giuliani, in addition to his character problems is also a strong gay rights advocate and pro-abortion, even to the point of opposing the partial birth abortion ban.
John McCain supports stem cell research, spearheaded the effort to pass the abominable campaign finance reform act, and also is soft on immigration.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has been one of those most responsible for the run-away growth of the federal government in addition to embracing stem cell research.
Governor George Pataki (R-NY) is a moderate-to-liberal like Giuliani without the charisma or the personal appeal, who'd lose an election for a 4th term in New York.
Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Mn.) has been widely floated as a candidate for President by many but has recently violated his no new-tax pledge in Minnesota.
Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ar.) who has done great things in the state of Arkansas on social issues, but has been increased spending at an average clip of 7% a year. In addition, he doesn't take the issue of illegal immigration seriously, as he stated recently that it isn't a 'real problem.'
Now having summarily dismissed seven presidential candidates, we'll winnow the field further in my next column.
Please, not now!!! There is a long way to go...
No, there's not a long way to go. What are the candidates doing in New Hampshire if there's a long way to go? I refer to myself a couple weeks ago:
As I begin a series on the 2008 Presidential race, its basically required to make the case why you should even care about 2008. In fact, we're less than a year from the conclusion of the last election, so this whole issue would seem utterly premature.
Yet, it's not. Do you think that Hillary, George Allen, Rudy Giuliani, Condi Rice, and the others are not thinking about '08? No, but there are several factors that require them to think about 2008. First, if you're going to run for President in 2008, you need to have organization and money begin being built now. Also, they have to schmooze leaders of state political parties to get support from the party establishment.
If you wait until 2007 or 2008, it'll be too late to think about who to support, a nominee will in effect be chosen. Remember back to 2000 when Bush raised $80 million. He had so much more money that the race was over for everyone but Steve Forbes and John McCain, but Bush's 50 state campaign overwhelmed them as Bush supporters controlled all the big States.
With our front loaded primary system, an upstart has got little shot of toppling the leader. Iowa and New Hampshire vote first, followed by a scattering of states and then six weeks after New Hampshire, there's Super Tuesday that pronounces the end of the Presidential campaign. If a candidate hopes to ride a strong place or win in New Hampshire or Iowa to victory, he has another thing coming. Unless he has funds after the primary, the campaign will go nowhere fast.
For those who don't prepare and start paying attention now, it means several things. When their candidates need financial support, they'll have none to give. They won't organize their precinct to support their candidate because they didn't pick someone in advance, nor will they be in a position to do so.
Of course, there will be a candidate chosen, the candidate of the party establishment. As of this writing, that candidate has yet to be named, but he or she will be. State Party chairman will find a candidate, generally one of small ideas and a big personality, a safe choice who will keep the Status Quo pretty much as is.
However, after 8 years, I think its time for some changes. The Bush Administration has provided some great leadership in reducing income tax rates, and the War on Terror. However, the administration has refused to constrain Congress' spending, ran an immigration policy that doesn't protect our national security or identity, and added more pages of unnecessary regulations to the Federal Register.
I believe that with respect for the current Administration, the next Republican administration needs to be more fiscally responsible, more serious about cutting the size and scope of the federal government, and have a good immigration policy. In addition to being good government, it allows the GOP to be dynamic coming into the next election. If all we try to do is carry the past eight years forward, sooner or later, Americans are going to want something different.
If you think we need change in 2008, now's the time to start thinking about what you're going to do about it. 2007 will be too late!
He sounds like your every day attention-whore looking for a claim to fame in being someone who predicted whomever is chosen. Poor guy.
Mike Pence is the guy.He meets ALL your criteria..and more!
No, I do not expect Alan Keyes to be a candidate for President of the United States in 2008, so he will not even enter into the discussion.
2008 is one of two.
George Allen and Condi Rice
George Allen and Sam Brownback
Allen is on my list..
Mike Pence. All the way.
I cannot agree, the way he ran his Senate campaign was crazy. I like the guy but no way could I ever vote for him as President after that.
"The character . . . of the president cannot be underestimated."
Well, that statement was rewritten, of course, for clintoon who had NO character nor morals or ethics.
I am looking forward to your list quite eagerly.
From where I sit, 2006 is shaping up to be something of a disaster, and 2008 will be worse. The Democrats do not represent me at all, and their shrill-shrieking idiocy on the War on Terror has rendered them completely out of the question, in my eyes.
But the Republicans of late have been offering me nothing either.
On life issues, we had the Bush boys play Pontius Pilate on Terri Schiavo and the US Congress wash its hands of the matter and allow judges to disregard Congressional subpoenas and we've got Supreme Court kabuki theater going on.
On immigration the Republican Party isn't distinguishable from the Democrats: do nothing.
On overall government philosophy, we've got exploding debt and regulation and programs, and no sense at all that anything is going to be made better. The current Republican leadership has no intention of changing its course.
So I look at that, and I shake my head sadly and see that the Republican Party is leaving me.
I can't even think of anyone else.
So I'm looking forward to your list.
I'll keep you posted.
I do believe there are several main issues that conservative voters can judge a candidate on.
*supports a strong national defense/security
*supports limited govt
*fiscal conservative on spending
*fiscal conservative on tax reform
*supports conservative nominees to federal courts
*supports anti-illegal immigration reform
*supports pro-life/right to life issues
I think that's a solid list, Reagan Man, and right on the money. Hopefully, we can be more together on our choice for '08 than we were on our choices for 2000, I've seen a lot of your posts on some other threads and I've enjoyed what you have to say.
Yes, that's a good list. That hits all the bases without leaving off anything crucial, nor adding anything extraneous (like, for example, "supports the flat tax" or "supports the Fair Tax" or "will privatize Social Security", for instance).
Right now I don't see any qualified conservative candidates on the political horizon. Let's hope for the best set of choices possible.
*supports a strong national defense/security=PENCE
*supports limited govt =PENCE
*fiscal conservative on spending =PENCE
*fiscal conservative on tax reform = PENCE
*supports conservative nominees to federal courts =PENCE
*supports anti-illegal immigration reform =PENCE
*supports pro-life/right to life issues =PENCE
Sorry for the overkill,but Pence is our ONLY hope for a real conservative in 08!
No overkill. I like your passion for Mike Pence. Let's see who announces and then we'll have a better idea who to support.