Posted on 02/11/2007 1:05:32 PM PST by redangus
As the 2008 presidential election cycle gears up I would like to take this time to put in my two cents on what I think Republicans should be looking for. I have not at this time chosen a favorite, nor have I written anybody off. For one it is way too early to do either and besides not everyone who might run has committed and of those that have I haven’t had the chance to take a look at what they all offer. However, there are a few traits that I think are of great importance when it comes to picking a viable candidate and some one who has the chance to win and govern well. I have no illusions that everyone of FR will agree with me, nor do I believe that there is a perfect candidate that will please all of us. But as I mentioned earlier I think, after watching the political scene for 30+ years, being a life-long conservative and I believe someone with a fairly logical and realistic view of the Nation, there are some things I would like to see from the Republican candidate.
First, I hope the candidate would be someone whose base political ideology is conservative. This does not mean the person has to be a far right freak. What I want is someone whose default position is conservative. I believe America is a conservative country for the most part. By that I mean that on a scale of 1-10 with ten being far right that most Americans fall somewhere in the 6-7 range and will listen to and vote for someone they feel comfortable with. The ideal candidate must be able to understand the importance of working well with opponents, have a willingness to compromise when it is for the good of the cause and be willing to listen to advisors, but when all is said and done conservatism should be the guiding principle.
Second, they must be able to articulate their views on the issues in a common sense way that everyone can understand. The candidate must be a communicator, someone who can think on their feet and have the strength of conviction to express their ideas with feeling and a sense of certainty. In today’s media climate a conservative is not going to find an easy row to hoe when it comes to getting their message out so they must be able to make the most of the chances they get.
Third, I want someone with successful executive experience. Mayor of a large city, CEO of a successful company or a successful run as governor, it makes no difference, but they must be able to show that they can lead effectively. It takes a different kind of person and personality to run things as opposed to being a member of a group that decides things by consensus. There is a reason why Congressmen and Senators are seldom elected President. The people understand the importance of decision making and being one of 435 or 100 does not make you a leader it makes you a committee member. As George Will said today on 'This Week w/Stephie' “who do you want on the other end of the phone in these trouble times when the call comes in that another attack as occurred or a missile has been launched and you have 5 minutes to make a decision?” I want someone who has had to make big decision in the past, not someone, regardless of their conservative credentials, whose first thought is we need to discuss this and come to some agreement on what we should do about it.
Lastly, the candidate has to be electable. For the record I do not look to the MSM to determine who is electable. Common sense tells us who is and who isn’t electable. What the MSM thinks is important may not be important to a moderate-conservative electorate. I am as pro-life as anyone on this site, and I would like my candidate to share those views, but I do not want a candidate that runs on a pro-life amendment platform. Any candidate that does is pandering. Give me someone who will appoint judges that won’t legislate from the bench and who just might send abortion policy back to the states and I will be happy. I am against gay marriage for a variety of reasons, but I do not want someone who runs on a no gay marriage amendment platform either, again more pandering. The President has little say on such issues and again that is an issue that is best left to the states to decide. I do, however, want a candidate that can convince me they believe the Bill of Rights says what it says, that they will govern accordingly and that they will appoint judges who agree.
And finally I want a candidate that believes in small government, and who believes that the government’s duties can be pretty much be summed up by a platform promoting low taxes, a strong defense and secure borders. I think someone who can convincingly put force an argument for those beliefs can win big.
Feel free to comment or flame as you desire.
Duncan Hunter is the man in '08.
Does he have any executive experience? If not then he isn't by my standards. I like our local guy Mike Pence from an ideological standpoint, but again he has no executive experience which for me at least is a must. If I am wrong about Mr.Hunter let me know.
Executive experience does not always come in the form of being elected to a higher office. Look at how Bill Clinton screwed things up and he had "executive experience", so did GWB. I really think that Hunter has what it takes to be a good President and would fit your criteria for "a strong defense and secure borders."
Please think about it. America needs someone strong and able more than any time in our history. Rudy's not that guy, but if he is the GOP nominee I will hold my nose and vote for him...........then go home and get drunk and I don't even drink!
It takes a different kind of person and personality to run things as opposed to being a member of a group that decides things by consensus. There is a reason why Congressmen and Senators are seldom elected President.
I'd rather have somebody like Hunter who, though a Congressman, would easily master the job. He has proven himself to be a consistent conservative. As POTUS, he would continue to do the same.
As compared to Guiliani or Romney, who have had governing status, but you could not trust them with the POTUS job. They have proven themselves VERY inconsistent.
Of course, Guiliani and Romney are both running to the right at the present, but anyone ought to see it is mere political expediency to gain the nomination.
Consistency thou art a jewel. In my opinion, Hunter's consistent conservativism trumps Guiliani and Romney's governing experience.
After looking at the field and comparing candidates who have announced, Duncan Hunter fills the bill for me as closely as any candidate has for many years. His time has come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.